Skip to main content

Full text of "Galileo Was Wrong The Catholic Church Was Right Complete nwo illuminati freemasons flat earth"

See other formats

Galileo Was Wrong 
The Church Was Right 

The Evidence from 
Modern S cience 

This volume is dedicated to: 

Albert Einstein 

.. .who invented Special Relativity to counter 
experiments revealing that the Earth was motionless 
in space, which then led him to General Relativity 
that forced him to accept a motionless Earth as a 
viable and worthy cosmological system 


Tahl e of Contents 

About the Authors ix 

Endorsements x 

Notes Concerning Terminology xiii 

Introduction 1 

Chapter 1 

The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 11 

Galileo’s Conversion to Geocentrism 12 

Copernicanism’s Procrustean Bed 16 

Ancient Origins of the Heliocentric/Geocentric Debate 30 

The Basic Framework: Crystalline Spheres 31 

The Greek Heliocentrists 34 

The Geocentric Victory 36 

The Real Truth about Copernicus’ Solar System 43 

Copernicus: More Epicycles than Ptolemy 56 

The Real Truth about Kepler’s Solar System 68 

Kepler verses Tycho 70 

Ptolemy, Copernicus and Kelper in Perspective 80 

Why No System is Completely Accurate 95 

What was the Attraction to Copernicanism? 101 

Is There a Copemican Conspiracy? 109 

Chapter 2 

Answering’ Common Objections about Geocentrism 125 

1) Doesn’t the Smaller Always Revolve Around the Larger? 125 

2) Doesn’t Stellar Parallax Prove the Earth is Moving? 147 

3) Doesn’t Stellar Aberration Prove the Earth Revolves? 158 

4) Doesn’t the Foucault Pendulum Prove Earth Rotates? 168 

5) Doesn’t the Bulge of the Equator Prove Earth Rotates? 180 

6) Doesn’t a Geosynchronous Satellite Prove Earth Rotates? 182 

7) Don’t Space Probes Show the Earth Rotates? 183 

8) Doesn’t Retrograde Motion Prove Earth is Moving? 184 

9) Doesn’t Star Streaming Prove Earth is Moving? 187 

10) Doesn’t the Doppler Effect Prove Earth is Moving? 187 

11) Is Geocentrism’s Geometry More Complicated? 190 

12) Do the Planets Revolve Around the Sun or the Earth? 192 


13) Don’t the Four Seasons Prove the Earth Revolves? 192 

14) Do Earthquakes and Tsunamis Retard Earth’s Rotation? 201 

15) Doesn’t NASA Use the Heliocentrism for Space Probes? 206 

16) Don’t the Phases of Venus Disprove Ptolemy? 209 

17) Didn’t Einstein Do Away with Ether? 214 

18) Isn’t Impossible for the Stars to Travel so Fast? 220 

19) Doesn’t Redshift Contradict a Small? 230 

20) Doesn’t the GPS Prove Relativity? 232 

21) Doesn’t Dark Matter Prove the Earth Isn’t Special? 239 

22) Doesn’t Dark Energy Prove the Universe is Expanding? 247 

23) Didn’t WMAP Prove the Big Bang? 261 

24) Doesn’t the Speed of Light Contradict Genesis 1 269 

25) Doesn’t a Rotating Universe Cause the Earth to Rotate? 286 

Cliapter 3 

Evidence tkat Ear tk is tke Center of tke Universe 293 

Edwin Hubble’s “Intolerable” Observations 293 

Big Bang Dilemma: Dark Energy or Geocentrism? 315 

The Discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Radiation 321 

CMB Anisotropy and Earth-Centeredness 331 

The 2001 Wilkin s on Microwave Anisotropy Probe 337 

NASA’s Interpretation of the WMAP Data 368 

The 2009 Planck Probe 378 

Correlation between the CMB and Preferred Spin Axis 383 

Distant Radio Sources Non-Copemican 388 

CMB Displays Small Spherical Universe 388 

The Hall of Mirrors Effect 390 

Correlation between Stonehendge and the CMB 393 

Gamma-Ray Bursts: The Copemican Dilemma 397 

Quasars: Spheres Around the Earth 403 

Violation of the Copemican Principle in Radio Sky 416 

Galaxies: Spheres of Stars around the Earth as Center 417 

The 2005 Sloan Digital Sky Survey 422 

Concentric Circles in WMAP Anisotropies 434 

Geocentrically Oriented Spectroscopic Binaries 435 

Quantized Planetary Orbits 438 

The Last Copemican Frontier: The Multiverse 439 

“The View from the Center of the Universe” 452 


Cliapter 4 

Experimental Evidence Earth is Motionless in Space 457 

Einstein’s “Unthinkable” Alternative 457 

The Significance of the Michelson-Morley Experiment 464 

Einstein’s Concern for the Fizeau and Airy Experiments 465 

The Experiments of Dominique Arago 469 

The Experiments of Augustin Fresnel 471 

The Experiments of Armand Fizeau 475 

The Experiments of James Bradley and George Airy 479 

The Experiments of Martinus Hoek 489 

The Experiments of Eleuthere Mascart 491 

The 1881 MicheIson Experiment 492 

The 1887 Michelson-Morley Experiment 498 

Fitzgerald/Lorentz’s Incredible Shrinking Machine, Phase I 504 

Albert Einstein Enters the Fray 527 

The Ether Entrainment Option 540 

Einstein and the Incredible Shrinking Machine, Phase II 542 

Herbert Dingle’s Critique of Einstein 568 

Martin Gardner and the Inherent Flaws of Relativity 574 

The Dead Ends of Relativity for Modem Cosmology 577 

The Case of the p-meson 587 

Einstein Admits Speed of Light is Not Constant 590 

Einstein Reinterprets Maxwell 595 

Cliapter 5 

More Experiments Point to Geocentrism 609 

Interferometer Experiments Subsequent to 1905 614 

The Geocentrism Connection 621 

What about the Copemican Non-Relativists? 622 

How to Correctly Interpret an Interferometer 623 

Sagnac 1913 Exp: Rediscovery of Absolute Motion 627 

The Michelson-Gale Exp: Sidereal Relative Rotation 637 

The Dayton Miller Experiments 644 

Recent Ether-Drift Experiments 663 

The Results of Sapphire Oscillators 667 


Cliapter 6 

Wkat is Space in tke Geocentric Universe? 673 

Einstein Goes Back to Ether 678 

Candidates for Material Ether 694 

The Ether of Quantum Mechanics and String Theory 705 

String Theory: Seeking to Bridge Einstein and Quantum 714 

Can Man Live in the World he has Created? 718 

The Copenhagen Perspective 721 

The Demise of Relativity Theory 725 

Newton’s Absolute Space and Spinning Water Bucket 731 

The “Space” of Diggs, Bruno, and Descartes 735 

The “Space” of Leibniz, Euler, and Kant 738 

Ernst Mach, Albert Einstein and Modem Philosophy 742 

Mach’s Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket 747 

Einstein’s Interpretation of Newton’s Bucket 749 

The Inherent Problems of Newton and Einstein’s Physics 754 

Are There Universal Connections in Space? 760 

The Geocentric Connection 771 


About tke Authors 

Robert A. Sungfenis, Ph.D., is the founder of 
Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 
Inc., a non-profit corporation. He holds advanced 
degrees in Theology and Religious Studies and 
was a physics major in college. His 700-page 
doctoral dissertation defended geocentric 
cosmology from scientific, theological and 
historical perspectives. He is the author of over 
twenty books on religion, politics, science and 
culture. He is also the managing partner of Stellar 
Motion Pictures, LLC in Los Angeles, which 
specializes in producing movies on science and religion. He is the 
executive producer of the recently released movie, The Principle. He has 
appeared on radio and television, including programs on CNN, the BBC 
and EWTN. He has authored all the chapters and appendices for Galileo 
Was Wrong: The Church Was Right: The Evidence from Modern Science, 

Robert J. Bennett, Pb.D., holds a 
doctorate in Physics from Stevens Institute 
of Technology with a thesis on General 
Relativity titled “Relativistic Rigid Body 
Motion.” He served as a physics instructor 
at Manhattan College and Bergen 
Community College from 1967-1983, and 
is presently doing private tutoring in 
physics and mathematics. Dr. Bennett has 
written Chapter 10, a detailed, technical 
and mathematical explanation of the various arguments for Geocentrism. 
He has served as a consultant for the entire Galileo Was Wrong: The 
Church Was Right: The Evidence from Modern Science project. 

except for Chapter 10. 



A truly magnificent work. There exists no better exposition of the 
history and science of geocentrism. Very highly recommended and a must 
for all those interested in the issues surrounding geocentrism today. The 
animations of the CD are excellent. They illustrate the daily and yearly 
motions of the sun and planets about the earth, the seasons, retrograde 
motion, and parallax in a uniform way. The authors have done a very 
admirable job all around. At long last their book provides the solution to 
all the “dark” fudging and dead-ends in modem Big Bang cosmology - a 
solution that no one dared voice until an accumulation of evidence over the 
last two hundred years forced them to do so. 

Gerardus Bouw, Pli.D. 

Astronomy, Case-Western University, Author of Geocentricity 

Drs. Sungenis and Bennett make a convincing case for the special and 
central position of the earth in the cosmos, both physically and spiritually. 
This is radically at odds from what everyone is taught from childhood; 
everyone “knows” the earth revolves around the sun. However, from time 
to time, like the little girl in Andersen’s tale The Emperor’s New Clothes, 
accepted “wisdom” is challenged; and what everyone “knows” to be true 
turns out to be merely a concocted fantasy. They make a powerful case 
that the “truths” of heliocentric and acentric cosmologies aiming to 
describe the “fabric” of space-time may in fact be constructed out of the 
same type of “cloth” as the outfit of the Emperor. 

Vincent J. Sckmitkorst, Pk.D., Physics 

This book shatters the mythology of the modem mind. Galileo and 
Einstein go the way of Zeus, as the truth ascends to reclaim man's destiny. 
It will change the world more dramatically than Copernicus, Galileo, 
Kepler, Newton and Einstein combined. 

Gerald Benitz, M.A., Pk.D. Mathematics/Electrical Engineering 

In their book, Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett have provided an 
excellent synopsis of a field of science that most people today have 
probably not even heard about. It is not a regurgitation of some ancient, 
debunked theory. Neither is this a lightweight paperback, in the vein of so 
many publications by scientists who have lost the dividing line between 
science and science fiction. Rather, this book is a work of monumental 
proportion which ranks, in my opinion, on a par with the meticulous 
observations of the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, and the tireless 
efforts of Walter van der Kamp who almost single-handedly raised 

geocentrism from the ashes in the 1970s and 80s....This book is a 
scholarly piece of work that should thus be welcomed by any thinking 
person, and that provides ample food for thought on our place within 
God’s universe.” 

Neville Thomas Jones, Pk.D. Physics, Imperial College, London 

Now that the Enlightenment is over, it was inevitable that the system 
upon which it was based should come in for the powerful critique which 
Sungenis and Bennett provide. Not inevitable, however, was the brilliant 
way they provide it. Their book exposes the ideological underpinnings of 
the system that failed at the time of the Michelson-Morley experiments, 
got revived by Einstein, and is still causing mischief today. 

E. Mick ael Jones, Pk.D. History, Temple Univ., Editor: Culture Wars 

In their book, Sungenis and Bennett examine the ‘anomalies’ that 
arise from the Copemican model, anomalies that are swept under the rug 
by the same scientists who assume the earth is immobile in order to 
‘simplify’ complex problems. A must read for those who can set aside 
prejudices and a priori assumptions. Human civilization is poised to 
undergo a colossal multi-faceted shift in perception, philosophy, science 
and metaphysics that is simply unprecedented in recorded history. 

Josepk A. Strada, Pk.D., Aerospace Engineer, NRO 

This book forcefully addresses the history, science, theological, 
philosophical, and worldview implications of our place in the universe. It 
is virtually a one-volume encyclopedia on geocentrism. After the science 
has been discussed and the history has been told, it is a powerful reminder 
of the worldview struggle that faces Christians today. 

Russell T. Arndts, Pk.D., Chemistry, L.S.U. 

Many works of art and science in the past have been claimed as 
“game-changers” or “paradigm shifts,” only to be revealed later as only 
superficially different from the status-quo. This book may look like just 
another “new” and “improved” intellectual product, but it’s the real thing. 

Tkaddeus J. Kozinski, Pk.D. Philosophy, 
Wyoming Catholic College 

It is with pleasure that I remand this volume into the hands of the 
reader, whether he or she is an atheistic scoffer, a Roman Catholic 
inquirer, a Protestant polemicist, an Evangelical skeptic, or is otherwise 
motivated to re-open an issue heretofore thought, wrongly, to have been 
settled nearly four centuries ago. This is all the more remarkable, insofar 

as the present volume exposes the dark, seamy underside of modem 
science and its Janus-like propensity for speaking out of both sides of its 
mouth simultaneously. 

Martin G. Selkrede, Vice President, The Chalcedon Foundation 

This book takes a critical look at the thesis that the Earth is flying 
through space. Flere you will find a thorough review of the scientific 
observations along with a review of the scientists themselves. You will 
have the evidence to make up your mind for yourself. Robert Sungenis and 
Robert Bennett have done a great service to science and to men of good 
will. Those who see the universe as the handiwork of God need no longer 
be subservient to fairy tales. 

Anonymous, Pk.D. (name witkkeld ky request) 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

This is an amazing work which opened my mind to many things in the 
field of astronomy and cosmology. I am grateful to Robert Sungenis and 
his co-author Robert Bennett for this lucid, philosophically powerful and 
meticulously documented work. 

Caryl Joknston, M. Ed., M.L.S. 

Jefferson Medical College, Author: Consecrated Venom 

The very mention that the earth is motionless at the center of the 
universe, with the sun and universe revolving about it each day, as outlined 
and defended from physics and astronomy in this book, elicits a profound 
initial disbelieving shock. This is not a matter of belief but of evidence and 
of demanding study. Accumulated evidence justifies the rational claim of 
the text. 

Jokn Domen, MS, Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

From Quasars to Gamma-Ray Bursts, from Parallax to Red Shifts, and 
from Michelson-Morley to Sagnac, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett’s book 
meticulously applies the scientific mortar to the theological bricks of 
geocentrism, producing a compelling structure that brings Catholic 
teaching and modem science to a crossroads. If the Earth is really the 
center of the universe, then modem man must face his biggest fear - that 
there is a Creator who put it there, and man is subject to His rule and 

Jokn Salza, Esquire, Author: Masonry Unmasked 


Notice Concerning’ Terminology and Physics 

This book is written for both layman and scientist. The main text of 
the book seeks to explain the scientific information in a simple and 
entertaining way. The footnotes contain the technical information and 
sources for the scientist and scholar. We employ the term “geocentrism” to 
represent the scientific position that the Earth is motionless in space at the 
center of the universe with neither diurnal rotation nor translational 
movement. We have adopted the term “heliocentrism” to represent the 
views of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, even though there are 
various differences among them, including the acentrism of Einstein. 
Others employ “geocentricity” or “geostatism” to represent the motionless 
Earth, and employ “geokineticism” or “antigeostatism” to represent a 
moving Earth. The term “geocentrism” will stand for any scientific theory 
that holds the Earth is the center of the universe and/or motionless in 
space. The term “heliocentrism” will stand for any scientific theory that 
holds that the Earth is not in the center, or that the sun is the center, or that 
there is no center of the universe, and that the Earth is in constant motion. 
In addition to the above, we have adopted the spelling “ether” rather than 
“aether,” since most scientific texts have employed the former. We have 
adopted to capitalize titles such as Special Relativity, General Relativity, 
Quantum Mechanics, the Big Bang, String Theory, etc., in order to 
emphasize that a particular but controversial theory is being discussed. The 
word “Earth” has been consistently capitalized in distinction to “sun,” 
“moon,” “stars” or “universe” which have been left in the lower case. The 
cosmic microwave background radiation is abbreviated with the acronym 
“CMB.” So as to limit the confusion often inherent in the words rotation 
and revolution, these volumes use word “rotation” to refer to the turning of 
an object upon its own axis, including the turn of the entire universe 
around the north-south axis of the Earth; whereas “revolution” refers to the 
angular movement of one object around another wherein both are 
separated by space, as in saying “Mercury revolves around the sun.” 

We make use of Newtonian, Machian, Lorentzian, Einsteinian, 
Quantum, LCDM (Big Bang) and other mathematical systems of physics 
but do not endorse any of them as having the correct physical 
representation of reality. We use these models to demonstrate that the 
geocentric universe can be substantiated by one or more of these models, 
but that none of them can provide the correct physical model of the 
universe. At times we will demonstrate how their limited view of reality 
has been used to obscure geocentric cosmology from the public, and at 
other times show how the logical conclusions of their own systems 
supports geocentric cosmology. 


"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. 
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being 

Arthur Schopenhauer 1 

"Scientists...are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All 
scientific knowledge is uncertain....Science alone of all the 
subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief 
in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding 
generation.. ..Learn from science that you must doubt the 
experts.. .Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." 

Richard Feynman 2 

"Sometimes the first obligation of intelligent men is to restate 
the obvious." 

George Orwell 3 

"Many people believe they are thinking when they are only 
rearranging their pre-existing prejudices." 

Martin Selbrede 4 

"The Copernican revolution outshines everything since the rise 
of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to 
the rank of mere episodes." 

Herbert Butterfield 5 

"The fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the eyes in 
his head see the world spinning round." 

Lennon and McCartney 6 

1 Attributed, not verified. 

2 Richard, Feynman, The Meaning of it All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist, 1998, 
p. 26; Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, 1999, p. 188; ibid., p. 187. 

3 Attributed, not verified. 

4 Interview for the scientific documentary, The Principle, 2012. 

5 Owen Barfield, Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry’, 2 nd edition, 
Wesleyan University Press, 1988, pp. 50-51. 

6 From the song, The Fool on the Hill, recorded 1967. 



T his book, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right: The 
Evidence from Modern Science, will, at the least, be viewed as an 
unusual book by the world at large. In modem times, everyone is 
taught from early childhood through old age that the Earth rotates on its 
axis and revolves around the sun. It is considered a bedrock of truth so 
firmly established that only the insane or perhaps members of the Flat 

Earth Society, would doubt or question so 
sanctified a truth of modem man. 

Unbeknownst to almost the entire 
human race, however, is the fact that no one 
in all of history has ever proven that the 
Earth moves in space. Despite his 
protestations to the contrary, the historical 
record reveals that Galileo Galilei had no 
proof for his controversial assertions. What 
he purported as proof in his day would be 
laughed out of science classrooms today. 
Galileo merely began a myth, a myth that 
eventually took on a life of its own and 
became the status quo of popular thinking. 
But this is not merely Galileo’s burden. 
In fact, as we will see in Chapter 1, a year 
before he died Galileo renounced, quite dramatically, all his claims that the 
Earth went around the sun - a fact of history which has been kept well 
under wraps by the reigning powers of academia. The burden is now on 
modem science, since some three hundred years after Galileo, like him, it 
has also deprived us of proof that the Earth moves. As one honest scientist 
put it in a book endorsed by Einstein: “...nor has any physical experiment 
ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” 7 Modem scientists freely 
admit that heliocentrism is merely the preferred model of cosmology, and 
the choice to believe it is made purely on philosophical grounds, not 
scientific ones. Although various scientists and historians have certainly 
made it appear as if many and varied proofs exist for heliocentrism, and 
thereby they have convinced a rather naive public, in reality, modem 

Galileo Galilei 

1564 -1642 

7 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, p. 73. 



science is actually covering up the fact that it has no proof for its cherished 
view of cosmology. 

As Albert Einstein himself once admitted, reliance on the doctrine of 
Copernicus is not nearly as strong as we were once led to believe: 

Since the time of Copernicus we have 
known that the Earth rotates on its axis and 
moves around the sun. Even this simple 
idea, so clear to everyone, was not left 
untouched by the advance of science. But let 
us leave this question for the time being and 
accept Copernicus’ point of view. 8 

Stephen Hawking, the next most 
famous physicist after Einstein, said 
something very similar: 

So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the 
Copernican system? Although it is 
not uncommon for people to say that 
Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, 
that is not true. As in the case of our 
normal view versus that of the 
goldfish, one can use either picture 
as a model of the universe, for our 
observations of the heavens can be 
explained by assuming either the 
earth or the sun to be at rest. 9 

Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, 1938, 1966, pp. 
154-155. Thus, Einstein could say: “The four men who laid the foundation of 
physics on which I have been able to construct my theory are Galileo, Newton, 
Maxwell, and Lorentz” (“Einstein, too, is Puzzled; It’s at Public Interest,” 
Chicago Tribune, April 24, 1921, p. 6). 

9 The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 41-42. 
Hawking adds: “Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our 
universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations 
of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” 
Hawking is referring to Ptolemy’s epicycles and equants. As we will see later, 
however, Ptolemy was seeking to account for the real motions of the planets as 
opposed to mere circular orbits. Copernicus desired to keep Aristotle’s circular 
orbits but later was forced to add his own epicycles to account for the actual 



Modem science has, indeed, been very happy to follow Einstein’s 
prescription to “accept Copernicus’ point of view” even though it has been 
made very clear that “the advance of science” has revealed it is an 
unprovable assumption. As one of Einstein’s staunch supporters and a 
much admired physicist in his own right, Sir Arthur Eddington, admitted 
about the question: 

Which is right?....Or are both the victims of 
illusion?....No one knows which is right. No one 
will ever know, because we can never find out 
which, if either, is truly at rest in the aether.. ..The 
bulge of the Earth’s equator may be attributed 
indifferently to the Earth’s rotation or to the 
outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced 
when the Earth is regarded as non-rotating. 10 

A very famous experiment took place in 1887 to 
answer the above question - the Michelson- 
Morley experiment. The results were shocking to 
say the least. Based on the then current science, 
the experiment demonstrated the Earth wasn’t moving through space. In a 
book endorsed by Einstein, theoretical physicist James Coleman admitted: 

....The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the 
ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect 
to the earth and the ether....Such an idea was not considered 
seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied 
the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other 
heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it. * 11 

Lincoln Barnett says much the same: 

The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an 
embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they coidd scrap the 
ether theory which had explained so many things about 

Arthur Eddington 


motion of the planets, and thus his system was not “much simpler” than 

10 Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, 
1923, pp. 24, 41. Eddington adds: “Some would cut the knot by denying the aether 
altogether. We do not consider that desirable” (ibid., p. 39). 

11 James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman, p. 37. Of Coleman’s book 
Einstein wrote: “Gives a really clear idea of relativity” (front cover 1954 edition). 



electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining 
the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable 
Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many 
physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood 
still than that waves - light waves, electromagnetic waves - 
could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious 
dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter 
century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The 
experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the 
same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the 
ether was zero. 12 

After a quarter century of turmoil, a choice had to be made. Either 
mankind could retain its then present knowledge of physics but admit the 
Earth was motionless in space, or it could reinvent physics with all new 
concepts and formulas to keep the Earth moving. Needless to say, the latter 
option was chosen. The one to lead them in this new venture was Albert 
Einstein. In a word, Einstein was forced to turn science upside down in 
order to keep Copernicus enshrined in the hearts of men. In turn, Ein s tein’s 
supporters have followed him and his theories with almost godlike 
devotion, developing what is, for lack of a better term, the ‘cult of 
Einstein.’ As his major biographer said it: 

A new man appears abruptly, the ‘suddenly famous Doctor 
Einstein.’ He carries the message of a new order in the universe. 

He is a new Moses come down from the mountain to bring the 
law and a new Joshua controlling the motion of heavenly 
bodies.. ..The new man who appears at that time represents order 
and power. He becomes the 0eio<; dvijp, the divine man, of the 
twentieth century. 13 

The reality is quite different, however. The theory of Relativity, by its 
very nature, brings Copernican cosmology under great suspicion and 
ultimately forces it into becoming just one perspective among others. By 
design, these stark implications of Relativity theory have been 

12 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, p. 44. 

13 Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, 1982, 2005, p. 311. The phrase Osioi; bvijp is 
the Greek for “divine man.” As another physicist put it: “Too often students 
believe that Moses, or rather Newton or Einstein, came down from a physical Mt. 
Sinai with his laws engraved on tablets of stone” (Ronald Newburgh, “Inertial 
forces, absolute space, and Mach’s principle: The genesis of relativity,” American 
Journal of Physics, 75(5), May 2007, p. 427). 



systematically ignored and the science community has decided to “leave 
this question for the time being” hoping that few people will be bold 
enough to follow the implications to their logical conclusion and ask, 
indeed, what right mankind has to “accept Copernicus’ point of view.” It is 
just a matter of time before books and articles like the one you are reading 
will begin to reveal this information to the public. Up until now almost all 
of it has been hidden from their eyes. Little is revealed at the university 
level, and virtually none of it has been divulged in the secondary 
curriculum, and we certainly haven’t read it on the pages of Time or USA 
Today, except perhaps for the occasional ridiculing of “fundamentalists” 
and their offshoots for even broaching such subjects. There is a good 
reason why such reticence exists - there is simply too much at stake. The 
mere thought of having to tell the world that it might have to turn back the 
clock and admit that science took a wrong turn when it accepted the 
Copemican theory as a scientific fact is, as Einstein’s biographer once put 
it, “unthinkable.” 14 

We can sympathize with their plight. Think of the sheer 
embarrassment modern science would face if it were forced to apologize 
for 500 years of propagating one of the biggest blunders since the dawn of 
time. This is not the Middle Ages, a time in which mistakes can be 
excused due to primitive scientific tools and superstitious notions. This is 
the era of Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Darwin, Einstein, Edison, Planck, 
Hubble, Hawking, and scores of other heroes of science. If Copernicus is 
wrong, how could modem science ever face the world again? How could it 
ever hold to the legacy left by these scientific giants if it were forced to 
admit it was wrong about one of its most sacrosanct and fundamental 
beliefs? Admitting such a possibility would put question marks around 
every discovery, every theory, every scientific career, and every university 
curriculum. The very foundations of modem life would crumble before 
their eyes. Not only would Earth literally become immobile, but it would 
figuratively come to a halt as well, for men would be required to revamp 
their whole view of the universe, and consider the most frightening reality 
of all - that a supreme Creator actually did put our tiny globe in the most 
prestigious place in the universe, since only fools would dare to conclude 
that Earth could occupy the center of the universe by chance. Most of all, 
science would be compelled to hand the reins of power and influence back 
to the Church and to Scripture, since it is from these sources alone that the 
teaching of a motionless Earth originated. 

Although we can all agree that modern science certainly has more 
sophisticated instruments today that allows it to gather thousands of bits of 

14 Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, 1984, p. 110. 



data about the universe, the problem is that scientists are at a loss how to 
interpret that information correctly and put it into a coherent and 
comprehensive understanding of the universe. Knowledge is plentiful, but 
wisdom is severely lacking. As one astronomer admitted: “Perhaps it is 
time for astronomers to pause and wonder whether they know too much 
and understand too little.” 15 Hence, the first two volumes of Galileo Was 
Wrong: The Church Was Right will be devoted mainly to the scientific 
evidence concerning cosmology. Since modem science has made itself 
into such an imposing authority on the minds of men today, no study of 
this kind could possibly be adequate until the scientific assertions are 
thoroughly addressed and rebutted. We have compiled the most 
comprehensive scientific treatise on the issue ever offered to the public. 
The third volume will be devoted mainly to the scriptural, ecclesiastical 
and patristic evidence supporting the cosmology of geocentrism. We only 
ask that you, the reader, contemplate the issue with an open mind. All too 
often when controversial subjects of this nature arise, those who wish to 
protect the status quo are quick to demonize their opponents, choosing 
instead to associate them with such institutions as the “Flat earth society,” 
or characterize them as geeks who don tinfoil hats and receive messages 
from outer space. Hopefully, you will not fall into that trap of bigotry and 
censorship. Rest assured, the authors of this book do not fill any of the 
above caricatures, but are dedicated solely to the cause of truth, both 
scientific and theological, and will seek to do their task in the face of any 

The world today has lost sight of its purpose for existence. 
Corruption, apathy and decadence have penetrated almost every level of 
society. Consequently, the human soul desperately needs a refresher 
course on the meaning of life. Only a few have realized what a large part 
Copemicanism has played in the overall deterioration of society. The poet 
Johann von Goethe once wrote: 

But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has 
resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the 
doctrine of Copernicus.... Possibly mankind has never been 
demanded to do more, for considering all that went up in smoke 
as a result of realizing this change: a second Paradise, a world of 
innocence, poetry and piety: the witness of the senses, the 
conviction of a poetical and religious faith. No wonder his 
contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every 
possible resistance to a doctrine which in its converts authorized 

15 Herbert Friedman, The Amazing Universe, National Geographic, 1975, p. 180. 



and demanded a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far 
unknown indeed not even dreamed of.” 16 

Barring a conversion to geocentric cosmology, our modest goal is, 
whoever reads these volumes will not leave without realizing that what he 
has been taught about the Earth’s annual journey around the sun is not so 
certain after all, and that similar to the rationale for deciding verdicts in a 
court of law, one should realize that there is enough evidence supporting 
geocentrism to cause a reasonable doubt in the minds of intelligent people. 
As even one of the leading science magazines recently stated: “When an 
author puts himself on the line by embracing an unfashionable idea, even 
though he is guaranteed to generate scorn or indifference, this should 
somehow be recognized” ( Discover , December 2006). 

Robert Sungfenis 
December 2012 

16 Zur Farbenlehre, Materialien zur Geschichte der Farbenlehre, Frankfurt am 
Main, 1991, Seite 666. 


For it is He who gave me unerring knowledge 
of what exists, to know the structure of the world 
and the activity of the elements; 
the beginning and end and middle of times, 
the alternations of the solstices 
and the changes of the seasons, 
the cycles of the year 
and the constellations of the stars... 

I learned both what is secret and what is manifest, 
for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me. 

Wisdom 7:17-19, 21 


"/ have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be 
detected by any optical experiment." 

Albert Einstein 17 

" the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space 
can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already 
remarked.. .that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. 
Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to 
become reconciled to this negative result." 

Albert Einstein 18 

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..." 

Henrick Lorentz 19 

"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through 
space might happen to have been nil." Arthur Eddington 20 

"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects 
of the earth's motion..." Wolfgang Pauli 21 

"We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether 
or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation." 

Henri Poincare 22 

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the 
influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative." 

Henri Poincare 23 

17 Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto 
University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982. 

18 “Relativity - The Special and General Theory,” cited in Stephen Hawking’s, A 
Stubbornly Persistent Illusion, 2007, p. 169. 

19 Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion of Luminiferous 
Phenomena,” in A. Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory’ of Relativity, p. 20. 

20 Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8. 

21 Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory’ of Relativity, 1958, p. 4. 

22 From Poincare’s lecture titled: “L’etat actuel et l’avenir de la physique 
mathematique,” St. Louis, Sept. 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956. 

23 From Poincare’s report La science et I’hypothese (“Science and 
Hypothesis”) 1901, 1968, p. 182. L. Kostro’s, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 30. 


"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation...which 
presupposes that the Earth moves." 

Albert Michelson 24 

"The data were almost unbelievable... There was only one other 
possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest." 

Bernard Jaffe 25 

"...nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth 
actually is in motion." 

Lincoln Barnett 26 

"Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after is still 
remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves..." 

Julian B. Barbour 27 

“...there must be no favored location in the universe, no center, no 
boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this 
situation, the cosmologist postulates spatial isotropy and spatial 

Edwin Hubble 28 

24 Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous 
Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125, said after his 
interferometer experiment did not detect the movement of ether against the Earth. 

25 Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76. Jaffe adds this 
conclusion to the above sentence: “This, of course, was preposterous.” 

26 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2 nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73. 

27 Julian Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, Cambridge University Press, 
1989, p.226. 

28 Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology’, 1937, p. 63. 


Ckapter 1 

Tke New Galil eo & tke Trutk akout Copernicanism 

G alileo was wrong?! How could modem men from the twenty-first 
century dare to name a book with such a title? No doubt, almost 
every book written about cosmology in modem times begins with 
the premise that Copernicus’ and Galileo’s cosmology was correct and the 
Catholic Church that condemned them was very mistaken. Typical 
remarks in a book about Galileo begin with very stem and foreboding 
words. The reader is simply not permitted to entertain any other possibility 
as to the construction and movements of the cosmos. As one author put it: 
“Galileo...who produced the irrefutable proofs of the Sun-centered 
system .. .came into direct and disastrous conflict with the Church.” 29 
Another says: “Readers, who know quite well that the Earth goes around 
the sun...” 30 Yet another says: 

Who better than Galileo to propound the most stunning reversal 
in perception ever to have jarred intelligent thought: We are not 
the center of the universe. The immobility of our world is an 
illusion. We spin. We speed through space. We circle the Sun. 

We live on a wandering star. 31 

The reader, not knowing any differently, doesn’t give the author’s 
assertion a second thought for all his life he has been taught that the Earth 
revolves around the sun, and he has placed himself under the edict that this 
particular teaching of modem science is no more to be doubted than the 
fact that fish swim or that birds fly. 

29 Ivan R. King, The Unfolding Universe, 1976, p. 132, emphasis added. Ivan 
King was professor of astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. 

30 Giorgio de Santillana, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Crime of 
Galileo, 1962, editor’s preface, pp. viii-ix. De Santillana’s major thesis is stated 
very early in the book: “...the tragedy was the result of a plot of which the 
hierarchies themselves turned out to be the victims no less than Galileo - an 
intrigue engineered by a group of obscure and disparate characters in strange 
collusion who planted false documents in the file, who later misinformed the Pope 
and then presented to him a misleading account of the trial for decision” (p. xx). 
Suffice it to say, our book will show that it is Santillana who has been the victim 
of an intrigue engineered by a group of prominent and influential scientists in 
collusion, who made false conclusions from scientific experiments and then 
presented a misleading account to the public. 

31 Dava Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter, 1999, p. 153. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

As the typical author begins from the unquestioned premise that 
Galileo’s sun-centered world has been indisputably proven, he will 
postulate various reasons why the Catholic Church did not accept this new 
and improved model of the universe. The suggestions are many and varied, 
ranging from “ecclesiastical bureaucracy,” “deliberate chicanery,” 
“religious fundamentalism,” “corporate interests” to “unfair tactics,” 32 but 
there is little doubt that virtually all the biographers and historians will 
invariably dismiss the possibility that Galileo could have been wrong. 

Galileo Galilei: 1564-1642 

Galileo’s Conversion to Geocentrism 

Although it will certainly come as a shock to most people, one very 
important reason we argue against heliocentrism is that we are revealing 
the wishes of none other than Galileo himself. 33 Unbeknownst to almost 
every modem reader, and even most historians, is the fact that just one 
year prior to his death Galileo made it very clear to his former allies where 
he now stood on the subject of cosmology. On the 29 th of March 1641, 

32 These are some of the various reasons given for the Church’s rejection of 
Galileo’s theory in the opening pages of Giorgio Santillana’s The Crime of 
Galileo (pp. ix, xv, xx), a very terse and satirically worded account of the Galileo 
affair which is highly critical of the Catholic Church’s role and very favorable to 

33 Galileo Galilei was also Latinized to Galileus Galileus, which was often the 
way Galileo signed his name, as for example in his exchange of letters with 
Kelper in 1597. He was also called Galileo Galilei Linceo. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Galileo responded to a letter that he received from his colleague Francesco 
Rinuccini, dated the 23 rd of March 1641, containing discoveries made by 
the astronomer Giovanni Pieroni concerning the parallax motion of certain 
stars, from which both Rinuccini and Pieroni believed they had uncovered 
proof of the heliocentric system. Rinuccini writes to Galileo: 

Your Illustrious Excellency, Signor Giovanni Pieroni has written 
to me in recent months telling how he had clearly observed with 
an optical instrument the movement of a few minutes or seconds 
in the fixed stars, but with just that level of certainty that the 
human eye can attain in observing a degree. All this afforded me 
the greatest pleasure - witnessing such a conclusive argument for 
the validity of the Copemican system! However, I have felt no 
little confusion because of something I read a few days ago in a 
bookshop. I happened to look at a book that is just now on the 
verge of being published. According to the author, if it were true 
that the sun is the center of the universe, and that the Earth 
travels around it once every year, it would follow that we would 
never be able to see half of the whole sky by night, because the 
line passing through the center and the horizons of the Earth, 
touching the periphery of the great orb, is a cord of a piece of the 
arc of the circle of the starry heavens, the diameter of which 
passes through the center of the sun. And since I have always 
believed it to be true - not having personally witnessed it - that 
the first [star] of Libra rises at the same moment as the first [star] 
of Aries sets, my limited intelligence has been unable to arrive at 
a solution. I therefore implore you, in your very great kindness, 
to remove this doubt from my mind. I will be very greatly 
obliged to you. Reverently kissing your hand, etc. Francesco 
Rinuccini.” 34 

Galileo, not being particularly moved by the assertions, writes this 
surprising response to Rinuccini: 

The falsity of the Copemican system should not in any way be 
called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have 
the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by 
the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty 

34 Le Opere Di Galileo Galilei , Antonio Favaro, reprinted from the 1890-1909 
edition by Firenze, G. Barbera - Editore, 1968, vol. 18, p. 311, translated from the 
original Italian by Fr. Brian Harrison. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the 
motion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed 
by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary 
thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that most solid argument 
deriving from the omnipotence of God. Ele is able to bring about 
in different ways, indeed, in an infinite number of ways, things 
that, according to our opinion and observation, appear to happen 
in one particular way. We should not seek to shorten the hand of 
God and boldly insist on something beyond the limits of our 
competence.... D’Arcetri, March 29, 1641. I am writing the 
enclosed letter to Rev. Fr. Fulgenzio, from whom I have heard 
no news lately. I entrust it to Your Excellency to kindly make 
sure he receives it.” 35 

Search as one might, few today will find Galileo’s retraction of 
Copernicanism cited in books or articles written on the subject of his life 
and work. Fewer still are those in public conversation about Galileo who 
have ever heard that he recanted his earlier view. The reason is, quite 
simply, that the letter has been obscured from the public’s eye for the last 
four centuries. As Galileo historian Klaus Fischer has admitted: “The 
ruling historiographers of science cannot be freed from the reproach that 
they have read Galileo’s writings too selectively.” 36 Fortunately, Galileo’s 
retraction managed to escape censorship and find its way among the rest of 
his letters in the twenty-volume compendium Le Opere di Galileo Galilei 
finally published in 1909 with a reprint in Florence in 1968. Centuries 

35 Ibid, p. 316, translated from the original Italian by Fr. Brian Harrison. A note 
added by the editor states: “Bibl. Naz. Fir. Banco Rari, Annadio 9, Cartella 5, 33. 
- Orginale, di mano di Vincenzio Vivani.” This means that the letter is stored in 
the rare archives of the National Library at Florence in the rare books department, 
in cabinet #9, folder #5, 33 and written in the original hand of Vincenzio Viviani, 
since Galileo was blind in both eyes in 1641. Viviani was Galileo’s last pupil and 
first biographer. NB: Viviani had performed the first Foucault-type pendulum 
experiment in 1661. Galileo’s letter to Rinuccini was translated into English by Fr. 
Brian Harrison upon request. Stillman Drake contains a similar translation in 
Galileo At Work: His Scientific Biography, 1978, p. 417. 

36 Klaus Fischer, Galileo Galilei, Munich, Germany, Beck, 1983, p. 114. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

prior to its publication, there was a concerted effort by either Rinuccini or 
someone behind the scenes to cover up the fact that the letter was, indeed, 
written and sent by Galileo. We know this to be the case since a rather 
obvious attempt was made to erase Galileo’s name as the signatory of the 
letter. The compiler of the original letter makes this startling notation: 
“The signature ‘Galileo Galilei’ has been very deliberately and repeatedly 
rubbed over, with the manifest intention of rendering it illegible.” 37 
Stillman Drake, one of the top Galileo historians, noticed the subterfuge: 

Among all Galileo’s surviving letters, it is only this one on 
which his name at the end was scratched out heavily in ink. I 
presume that Rinuccini valued and preserved Galileo’s letters no 
matter what they said, but did not want others to see this 
declaration by Galileo that the Copemican system was false, lest 
he be thought a hypocrite. 38 

Judging from the contents of his letter to Rinuccini, for quite some 
time it seems that Galileo had been contemplating the problems inherent in 
the Copemican system, as well as his desire to convert back to an Earth- 
centered cosmology. The wording in his letter is rather settled and direct as 
it does not reflect someone who is confused or equivocating. It holds the 
convictions of a man who has been swept off his feet by a more 
convincing position. Hence, far from being a hero of modem cosmology, 
shortly before his death Galileo had become its worst adversary - a fact of 
history that has been either quietly ignored or deliberately suppressed. 

What has also been suppressed is the spiritual reason Galileo had a 
change of heart. In the new book Galileo: Watcher of the Skies, author 
David Wootton makes a substantial case that prior to 1639, three years 
before his death, Galileo was not a true Christian but merely a nominal 
Catholic who was a member of a secret society that actually rejected major 
Catholic doctrines. These doctrinal aberrations, coupled with his immoral 
life, strongly suggest that Galileo’s quest to advance Copernicanism was 
motivated by a very strong anti-Church sentiment, as was the case with 
many other scientists in history. By 1641, it seems to be the case that 
Galileo’s newfound faith led him to accept fully the Church’s historic 
geocentric cosmology as a divine revelation. 39 

37 Original Italian: “La firma ‘Galileo Galilei’ e stata accuratissimamente coperta 
di freghi, con manifesta intenzione di renderla illeggibile” (Le Opere Di Galileo 
Galilei, vol. 18, p. 316, footnote #2). Translated by Fr. Brian Harrison. 

38 Stillman Drake, Galileo At Work: His Scientific Biography, 1978, p. 418. 

39 See Volume III, Chapter 16 for the details of Galileo’s conversion. David 
Wootton, Galieo: Watcher of the Skies, New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, 2010. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 
Copemicanism’s Procrustean Bed 

Opposed to the repentant and converted Galileo, most of today’s 
scientists impose on us a belief, according to Carl Sagan (d. 1996), that 
“we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy 
tucked away in some forgotten comer of a universe in which there are far 
more galaxies than people,” and all of which popped into existence, by 
chance, “billions and billions” of years ago. 40 

Carl Sagan Stephen Gould 

1934-1996 1941-2002 

This glum picture of our place in the universe is, in the estimation of 
its most cherished icons, the springboard of all modern science. In the 
words of one of its leading figures, Stephen Jay Gould: 

40 Carl Sagan, Cosmos , New York: Random House, 1980, p. 193. “The Cosmos is 
all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos 
stir us — there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation of a 
distant memory, as if we were falling from a great height. We know we are 
approaching the greatest of mysteries” (ibid., p. 4). “The idea that God is an 
oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall 
of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws 
that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally 
unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity” 
(“Scientists & Their Gods,” U.S. News & World Report Vol. Ill (1991); “Who is 
more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and 
accepts whatever it has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book 
must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human 
beings involved?” Interview with Charlie Rose (1996). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

“...the common component of all major scientific 
revolutions...revolutions that smash [the] pedestals...of our 
cosmic arrogance...[has been] the cosmological shift from a 
geocentric to a heliocentric universe, ‘when [humanity] realized 
that our earth was not the center of the universe, but only a speck 
in a world-system of a magnitude hardly conceivable.’.... 
Revolutions are... consummated when people...grasp the 
meaning of this reconstruction for the demotion of human status 
in the cosmos. 41 

There is probably no statement better than Gould’s that sums up the 
motivations, aspirations, and convictions of the modem scientific 
community. All of modem science, in one form or another, is based on the 
Copernican premise that the Earth revolves around the sun. To posit 
otherwise is, as one scientist put it, “a depressing thought.” 42 In brief, 
heliocentrism has served as the quintessential catapult to release science 
from the so-called ‘constraints of religion,’ and it has never looked back. 
Gould continues the same theme in another book: 

Galileo was not shown the instruments of torture in an abstract 
debate about lunar motion. He had threatened the Church’s 
conventional argument for social and doctrinal stability: the 
static world order with planets circling about a central earth, 
priests subordinate to the Pope and serfs to their Lord. But the 
Church soon made its peace with Galileo’s cosmology. They had 
no choice; the earth really does revolve around the sun. 43 

41 Stephen Jay Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History’, 
1996, p. 325. The quotation is Gould’s citation of Sigmund Freud, who adds: 
“Humanity has.. .had to endure.. .great outrages upon its naive self-love.” Gould is 
convinced that “we have truly discovered - as a fact of the external world, not a 
preference of our psyches - that the earth revolves around the sun...” (ibid., p. 
93). In other works, he is not so self-assured: “These are two things that we can’t 
comprehend. And yet theory almost demands that we deal with it. It’s probably 
because we’re not thinking about them right. Infinity is a paradox within Cartesian 
space, right? When I was eight or nine I used to say, ‘Well, there’s a brick wall 
out there.’ Well, what’s beyond the brick wall? But that’s Cartesian space, and 
even if space is curved you still can’t help thinking what’s beyond the curve, even 
if that’s not the right way of thinking about it. Maybe all of that’s just wrong! 
Maybe it’s a universe of fractal expansions! I don’t know what it is. Maybe there 
are ways in which this universe is structured we just can’t think about” (Interview 
with John Horgan, cited in The End of Science, 1996, p. 125). 

42 Donald Goldsmith, The Evolving Universe, 1985, p. 140. 

43 Stephen J. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, 1981, 1996, p. 54. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Of course, the other side of the story is, if Gould and his colleagues 
are wrong, then “the most important scientific revolution” of all time waits 
to be restored to its rightful place. Earth, as the center of the universe, 
motionless in space wherein all other celestial bodies revolve around it, 
would destroy, in one mortal blow, the theories of evolution, paleontology, 
cosmology, cosmogony, relativity, and many other modem disciplines, 
placing them all on the dust heap of history. If Earth is in the center of the 
universe, it means, with little argument from the science community, that 
Someone placed it there by design. Gould realized that fact better than 
anyone else. But with all due respect to Gould, it is not “arrogance” that 
leads one to see the Earth as the center of the universe. Rather, humility 
guides the human soul to recognize that there is Someone much higher 
than we Who has esteemed Earth so much that He put it in a most unique 
place in the universe to be the apple of His eye. Arrogance is on the side of 
those who would seek to remove that Someone from our immediate 
purview by throwing the Earth into the remote recesses of space. As 
Galileo historian Arthur Koestler concluded: 

The notion of limitlessness or infinity, which the Copemican 
system implied, was bound to devour the space reserved for 
God....This meant, among other things the end of intimacy 
between man and God. Homo sapiens had dwelt in a universe 
enveloped by divinity as by a womb; now he was being expelled 
from the womb. Hence Pascal’s cry of horror. 44 

Not far behind Gould’s sentiment is another science icon, Stephen 

[We have moved] from the revolutionary claim of Nicolaus 
Copernicus that the Earth orbits the sun to the equally 
revolutionary proposal of Albert Einstein that space and time are 
curved and warped by mass and energy. It is a compelling story 
because both Copernicus and Einstein have brought about 
profound changes in what we see as our position in the order of 

44 Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers: A History’ of Man’s Changing Vision of the 
Universe, 1959, 1979, p. 222. Koestler is referring to Blaise Pascal (d. 1662), a 
Catholic (Jansenist) philosopher who was unsure of God’s existence and 
desperately tried to fill the void. He is noted as saying: “I am terrified by the 
emptiness of these infinite spaces” ( Pensees sur la religion, 1669). Echoing 
similar sentiments, Edmund Burke stated in 1757: “Infinity has a tendency to fill 
the mind with that sort of delightful horror...” A Philosophical Enquiry’ into the 
Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, pp. 129, 431. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

things. Gone is our privileged place at the center of the universe, 
gone are eternity and certainty, and gone are absolute space and 
time. 45 

Stephen Hawking b. 1942 

So not only does science wish to remove Earth from the center, the 
demotion also dictates that the things we have always held as reliable 
guideposts to our lives are suddenly tom away from us. An Earth set adrift 
will invariably make everything else relative and thus, as Elawking admits, 
will turn the notions of “certainty” and “absolutes” into mere figments of 
our imagination. 

Curiously, Gould and Elawking don’t seem bothered by such 
upheaval and unsettling of our world. In fact, they seem rather predisposed 
to it. They would have surely been opposed to Galileo’s conversion (which 
Galileo based on his Catholic faith), and the reason, perhaps, has 
something to do with their self-attested atheism and their allegiance to 
rationalism and materialism. They know deep down in their souls that if 
they can keep the Earth in the outer recesses of space there is no longer 
clear evidence that the Someone exists, and they can live their lives 
happily ever after. 

45 On the Shoulders of Giants, ed., Stephen Hawking, 2002, p. ix. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

Paul C. W. Davies, b. 1946 

Thus, the message of modem man, enshrined as it is in the gospel of 
Nicolaus Copernicus, has literally, and figuratively, turned the world 
upside down. Copernicanism is the foundation for modem man’s 
independence from God, a connection that was recognized by the editor of 
the world’s most prestigious scientific journal. When confronted in the late 
1970s with the new model of cosmology invented by the well-known 
physicist George F. R. Ellis (a cosmology that proposed the Earth was in a 
central position in the universe), Paul C. W. Davies, the editor of Nature, 
was forced to reply: “His new theory seems quite consistent with our 
astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we 
are godless and making it on our own.” 46 

1 P. C. W. Davies, “Cosmic Heresy?” Nature, 273:336, 1978. In the same article 
Davies admits: “ we see only redshifts whichever direction we look in the 
sky, the only way in which this could be consistent with a gravitational 
explanation is if the Earth is situated at the center of an inhomogeneous 
Universe.” Confirming Davies’ agnosticism is a letter he wrote to me on August 
9, 2004, stating: “I have long argued against the notion of any sort of God who 
resides within time, and who preceded the universe.” Davies, however, is honest 
enough to admit he cannot lightly dismiss Ellis’ science or mathematics that 
connect the Earth with the center of the universe. As for Ellis, although he realizes 
the geocentric evidence for the universe, he opts to describe it as a spherical 
dipole universe in which the Earth is the south pole position or “anticenter,” while 
the point at which the Big Bang exploded is the north pole or “center.” The 
diameter between the center and anticenter is the longest distance in the universe. 
The center contains a supermassive black hole from which light is so redshifted 
that it appears as 2.73 Kelvin temperature by the time it reaches earth. As such, his 
model merely takes the singularity from the past and puts it in the present. As he 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

Albert Einstein, whose theory of 
Relativity sought to eliminate the possibility of 
having only one point in the cosmos serve as a 
center, knew instinctively, however, that the 
choice between a heliocentric or geocentric 
system was, from both a scientific and 
philosophical point of view, totally arbitrary. 
From the scientific viewpoint he enlightens us 
with these words: 

The struggle, so violent in the early days of 
science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would 
then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be 
used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at 
rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at 
rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning 
two different coordinate systems. 47 

Others have noted the same about Einstein’s Relativity: 

According to Einstein, the argument over whether the earth turns 
around or the heavens revolve around it, is seen to be no more 
than an argument over the choice of reference frames. There is 
no frame of reference from which an observer would not see the 

says in another paper: “In the FRW [Friedmann-Robertson-Walker] universes 
\i.e., the Big Bang], the singularity is hidden away inaccessibly in the past; in 
these universes, it is sitting ‘over there’ (in a sense, surrounding the Universe), 
where it can influence, and be influenced by, the Universe continually...for this 
continuing interaction might be envisaged as the process which keeps the 
Universe in existence” (“Ellis, Maartens and Nel, “The Expansion of the 
Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1978, p. 447). 
Ellis presented his radical view in a 1979 essay contest sponsored by the Gravity 
Research Foundation. Our point here, however, is not to condone Ellis’ model of 
the universe, but only to show that even a hint of Earth’s centrality prompts 
scientific philosophers such as Davies to recognize its divine implications. 

47 The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, 
Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212. In another sense, 
Relativity has no basis making such judgments, for as Einstein himself notes: 
“The theory of relativity states: ‘The laws of nature are to be formulated free of 
any specific coordinates because a coordinate system does not conform to 
anything real’” (Annalen der Physik 69, 1922, 438, in The Expanded Quotable 
Einstein, p. 244). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

effects of the flattening of the poles. Thus in frame number 1 
(the earth turns round while the sky is at rest), the centrifugal 
force is a consequence of the earth’s motion (uniform 
acceleration) relative to the heavens. This causes the flattening. 

In the latter frame, number 2 (the sky rotate and the earth stands 
still), the centrifugal force should be understood as being an 
effect of “the rotating heavens,” which is generating a 
gravitational field that causes the flattening of the poles. The two 
explanations are equivalent as there is equivalence between 
inertial and gravitational mass. 48 

Consequently, Einstein concludes: 

When two theories are available and both are compatible with 
the given arsenal of facts, then there are no other criteria to 
prefer one over the other except the intuition of the researcher. 
Therefore one can understand why intelligent scientists, 
cognizant both of theories and of facts, can still be passionate 
adherents of opposing theories. 49 

As it is with many scientists, Einstein had his biases that led him to 
choose which of the two relativistically equivalent systems he would 
endorse. Much of his bias came from his disdain for theology in general 
and the Catholic Church in particular. For Einstein, Galileo was 

...a representative of rational thinking against the host of those 
who, relying on the ignorance of the people and the indolence of 
teachers in priest’s and scholar’s garb, maintain and defend their 
positions of authority” wherein Galileo had the will to 
“overcome the anthropocentric and mythical thinking of his 
contemporaries and lead them back to an objective and causal 
attitude toward the cosmos. 50 

Copernicus used a similar bias against Ptolemy when he decided to 
reintroduce the world to heliocentric cosmology. He knew by the sheer 

48 “Einstein’s Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth,” Galina Granek, 
Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel, 
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 61. 

49 “Induction and Deduction in Physics,” Berliner Tageblatt, December 25, 1919. 
Cited in The Expanded Quotable Einstein, p. 237. 

50 Albert Einstein’s foreword in Stillman Drake’s translation of Galileo’s 
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, 2001, p. xxiii. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

principle of relativity that there are at least two viable ways of looking at 
celestial movements. He states in his De revolutionibus : 

And why not admit that the appearance of daily revolution 
belongs to the heavens but the reality belongs to the Earth? And 
things are as when Aeneas said in Virgil: ‘We sail out of the 
harbor, and the land and the cities move away.’ 51 

But, at best, relativity will produce a draw between the heliocentrism 
and geocentrism. What was it, precisely, that led Copernicus and his 
followers to opt for one over the other? In light of this question, scientific 
historian Noel M. Swerdlow believes that his commentary on the Commentariolus that Copernicus 
probably discovered the Tychonic [geocentric] system at the 
same time as his own Copemican system. Why, Swerdlow 
wondered, did Copernicus choose his own system in preference 
to the Tychonic one, which avoids all the dynamical problems of 
terrestrial mobility, to say nothing of the theological problems? 
Swerdlow con-cluded...that Copernicus was strongly swayed by 
purely mechanical considerations to do with his acceptance of 
the theory that the planets are carried by material spheres. For in 
the Tychonic system Mars would have to pass at some points in 
its motion through the sphere of the sun, and Swerdlow believed 
that Copernicus must have found this an insuperable difficulty, 
therefore opting for the intellectually much more daring 
heliocentric system with a mobile earth. 52 

If true, the sheer irony is that by employing a later-to-be-discredited 
Aristotelian theory of planets orbiting the sun by being attached to rotating 
crystal spheres, Copernicus was led to deny the perfectly viable and less 
complicated geocentric model for the much riskier “terrestrial mobility” of 
heliocentrism. It was precisely for these kinds of haphazard developments 

51 On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, Chapter 8, para. 4, trans. Charles 
Glenn Wallis, 1995, p. 17. 

52 Julian B. Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, p. 255-256. Although Barbour 
doesn’t necessarily agree that Swerdlow’s thesis about the spheres is what 
motivated Copernicus to reject the Tychonic model; and although Barbour agrees 
that Copernicus did, indeed, use Aristotle’s crystalline spheres, he admits that 
“Copernicus seems to be on the point of advancing the Tychonic system as an 
explicit possibility...” but turns against it because of “Neoplatonic sympathies to 
see the center of the planetary system as an ideal location for the sun.” 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

that critic Arthur Koestler titled his book, “The Sleepwalkers,” since the 
record showed numerous examples that the history of science was 
comprised of one serendipitous thought process after another, whether 
good or bad. 

Be that as it may, the geocentrists likewise appealed to relativity to 
answer the relativity of the Copemicans. As Barbour notes: 

It is another irony that the post-Copemican defenders of 
Aristotelian cosmology in the late sixteenth and early 
seventeenth centuries in fact pushed the principle of optical 
relativity to its extreme; for just as Copernicus invoked the 
principle of relativity to show that the earth could move, even if 
it seemed to be at rest, they argued that the same principle 
implied equally well that the earth could be at rest and the 
remainder of the universe in motion. They took refuge in the 
impartiality of relativity. 53 

Physicist Herbert Dingle, one of Einstein’s most vehement critics, 
understood the implications very well. He writes: 

But velocity has no meaning apart from an accepted standard of 
rest, and the principle of relativity is the principle that there is no 
such standard fixed by nature but that you may adopt any 
standard you wish. 54 

We, of course, offer a return to an immobile Earth as the “accepted 
standard of rest,” which, of course, will terminate any dependence on 
Relativity theory. Still, even though Relativity theory, if followed to its 
logical conclusion will not allow anyone to rest his case with Copernicus, 
most of the world will cling to it, either from sentiment or personal 
preference. Einstein knew this, too. From a more philosophical point of 
view he admits that we pick the universe with which we are most 
emotionally comfortable: 

Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a 
simplified and intelligible picture of the world: he then tries to 
some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of 

53 Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, pp. 254-255. 

54 Herbert Dingle, The Special Theory’ of Relativity, 1961, p. vii. Dingle adds: 
“That makes ‘length’ of a body indefinite, and that means that all other physical 
measurements that are definitely related to length (i.e. all other physical 
measurements) must share that indefiniteness.” 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

experience, and thus to overcome it. This is what the painter, the 
poet, the speculative philosopher, and the natural scientists do, 
each in his own fashion. Each makes this cosmos and its 
construction the pivot of his emotional life, in order to find in 
this way peace and security that he can not find within the all- 
too-narrow realm of swirling personal experience. 55 

Until these admissions were afforded to us, however, the dawn of 
Copernicanism faced mankind with a revolution in human thinking 
unsurpassed by any single event, save Noah’s flood and the advent of 
Jesus Christ. As Alexander Koyre understood it: 

The dissolution of the Cosmos...this seems to me to be the most 
profound revolution achieved or suffered by the human mind 
since the invention of the Cosmos by the Greeks. It is a 
revolution so profound and so far-reaching that mankind - with 
very few exceptions, of whom Pascal was one - for centuries did 
not grasp its bearing and its meaning; which, even now, is often 
misvalued and misunderstood. Therefore what the founders of 
modem science, among them Galileo, had to do, was not to 
criticize and to combat certain faulty theories, and to correct or 
to replace them by better ones. They had to do something quite 
different. They had to destroy one world and to replace it by 
another. They had to reshape the framework of our intellect 
itself, to restate and reform its concepts, to evolve a new 
approach to Being, a new concept of knowledge, a new concept 
of science - and even to replace a pretty natural approach, that of 
common sense, by another which is not natural at all. 56 

55 Said in honor of Planck’s 60 th birthday. Albert Einstein, Creator and Rebel, 
1972, p. 222, Viking Press reprint. 

56 Alexandre Koyre, “Galileo and Plato,” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 4, 
no. 4, Oct. 1943. Koyre adds elsewhere: “I need not insist on the overwhelming 
scientific and philosophical importance of Copernican astronomy, which, by 
removing the earth from the center of the world and placing it among the planets, 
undermined the very foundation of the traditional cosmic world-order.. .as we 
know, the immediate effect of the Copernican revolution was to spread skepticism 
and bewilderment....At the end we find nihilism and despair....The infinite 
Universe of the New Cosmology, infinite in Duration as well as in Extension, in 
which eternal matter in accordance with eternal and necessary laws moves 
endlessly and aimlessly in eternal space, inherited all the ontological attributes of 
Divinity. Yet only those - all the others the departed God took away with Him” 
(Alexandre Koyre, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, 1968, pp. 29, 
43, 276). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Arthur Koestler says it this way: 

The new philosophy destroyed the mediaeval vision of an 
immutable social order in a walled-in universe together with its 
fixed hierarchy of moral values, and transformed the European 
landscape, society, culture, habits and general outlook as 
thoroughly as if a new species had arisen on this planet. 57 

James Burke adds: 

The work, published in 1543, was called On the Revolution of 
the Celestial Spheres. It stated that the center of the universe was 
a spot somewhere near the sun...The scheme met the 
requirements of philosophical and theological belief in circular 
motion. In every other respect, however, Copernicus struck at the 
heart of Aristotelian and Christian belief. He removed the Earth 
from the center of the universe and so from the focus of God’s 
purpose. In the new scheme man was no longer the creature for 
whose use and elucidation the cosmos had been created. His 
system also placed the Earth in the heavens, and in doing so 
removed the barrier separating the incorruptible from the 
corruptible. 58 

Owen Barfield, in his penetrating book on human thought, suggests 

that the Copemican revolution dwarfs any other: 

The real turning-point in the history of astronomy and of science 
in general was... when Copernicus...began to think, and others, 
like Kepler and Galileo, began to affirm that the heliocentric 
hypothesis not only saved the appearances, but was physically 
true. It was this, this novel idea that the Copemican (and 
therefore any other) hypothesis might not be a hypothesis at all 
but the ultimate truth, that was almost enough in itself to 
constitute the “scientific revolution,” of which Professor 
Butterfield has written: “it outshines everything since the rise of 
Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the 
ra nk of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the 
system of medieval Christendom”....It was not simply a new 
theory of the nature of the celestial movements that was feared. 

57 Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers , p. 13. 

58 James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, p. 135. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

but a new theory of the nature of theory; namely, that, if a 
hypothesis saves all the appearances, it is identical with truth. 59 

Although Barfield does not give the citation, he is referring to the 
quote in Herbert Butterfield’s book The Origins of Modern Science: 1300- 
1800. b ° Yet he left out the more significant of Butterfield’s words: 

Since it [the Copemican Revolution] changed the character of 
men’s habitual mental operations even in the conduct of the non¬ 
material sciences, while transforming the whole diagram of the 
physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it 
looms so large as the real origin both of the modem world and of 
the modem mentality, that our customary periodisation of 
European history has become an anachronism and an 
encumbrance. 61 

E. A. Burtt adds that after the Copernican revolution... 

Man begins to appear for the first time in the history of thought 
as an irrelevant spectator and insignificant effect of the great 
mathematical system which is the substance of reality. 62 

Friedrich Engels, co-author with Karl Marx of 
the Communist Manifesto, reveals that the 
Copemican revolution was the beginning of 
modern man’s humanistic religion, and for 
added flavor, he describes its advancement in 
Newtonian temis: 

What Luther’s burning of the papal Bull 
was in the religious field, in the field of 
natural science was the great work of 
Copernicus... from then on the 
development of science went forward in 
great strides, increasing, so to speak, 
square of the distance in time of its point 

Friedrich Engels 

1820 - 1895 

proportionately to the 
of departure... 63 

59 Owen Barfield, Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry, 2 nd ed., 1988, pp. 

60 Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science: 1300-1800, 1957, p. 7. 

61 Ibid., pp. 7-8. 

62 E. A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, p. 90. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

C. S. Lewis adds: 

“Go out on a starry night and walk 
alone for half an hour, resolutely 
assuming that the pre-Copernican 
astronomy is true. Look up at the sky 
with that assumption in your mind. 
The real difference between living in 
that universe and living in ours will 
then, I predict, begin to dawn on 

The nihilist Friedrich Nietzsche, after seeing what the scientific 
revolution did to mankind, despondently concluded: “God is dead.” What 
is even more significant is why Nietzsche proffered such sentiments. Fie 

“Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have 

killed him - you and I. We are his 
murderers. But how have we done 
this? Flow were we able to drink up 
the sea? Who gave us the sponge to 
wipe away the entire horizon? What 
did we do when we unchained the 
Earth from its sun? Whither is it 
moving now? Whither are we 
moving now? Away from all suns? 

Are we not perpetually falling? 
Backward, sideward, forward, in all 
directions? Is there any up or down 
Friedrich Nietzsche left? Are we not straying as through 

1844 -1900 an infinite nothing? Do we not feel 

the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not 
more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns 
be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise 

Clive Staples Lewis 


63 Nicholas Rescher, Scientific Progress, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1978, pp. 123- 
124. It is commonly admitted by historians that the Copernican Revolution 
spawned both the French and Bolshevik Revolutions. Marx said he was indebted 
to Copernicus. 

64 C. S. Lewis, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, 1966, p. 47. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell 
anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. 

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How 
shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves?” 65 

The references to “What did we do when we unchained the Earth 
from its sun?” or “Is there any up or down left?” show that Nietzsche is 
speaking about none other than the Copemican revolution and the 
cataclysmic upheaval it ignited in the hearts of men. Many moderns have 
repeated Nietzsche’s quote with the interpolation “God is dead...Our 
science has killed him,” but few have noticed that the science to which 
Nietzsche was referring is Copernicanism and its offshoots, regardless of 
whether Nietzsche agreed or disagreed with heliocentric cosmology. The 
poet John Donne expressed a similar sentiment: 

And new philosophy calls all in doubt 
The element of fire is quite put out 
The sun is lost, and th' Earth, and no man's wit 
Can well direct him where to look for it. 

And freely men confess that this world's spent. 

When in the planets and the firmament 
They seek so many new; they see that this 
Is crumbled out again to his atomies 
'Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone 66 

65 “The Gay Science” in Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1885). The above 
quote is not chosen to suggest that Nietzsche had any sympathies or sentiments 
towards God or religion, but only that, in his inimitable way, he saw the obvious 
truth that, to whatever degree, Copernicanism separated man from God. Rest 
assured, many other quotes reveal Nietzsche’s negative feelings about God and 
religion: “I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.” “After 
coming in contact with a religious man, 1 always feel that I must wash my hands.” 
Nietzsche eventually contracted syphilis and committed suicide. 

6 John Donne (d. 1631). These lines extracted from a 238-line poem titled, An 
Anatomy of the World written in 1611, some say as an elegy for 15-year-old 
Elizabeth Drury whose death Donne saw as a symbol of the world’s decay, while 
her heaven bound soul gave hope for regeneration. Others see included in it 
Donne’s commentary on Galilean cosmology, since it came only a year after 
Galileo’s Sidereus Nuncius published in 1610 (per Cohen, Revolution in Science, 
p. 498). Donne was born into Catholicism but joined the Anglican church in the 
1590s, not caring much for the papacy. A poem written a year before, Ignatius His 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

The Ancient Orig’ins o f the 
Hehocentric/Geocentric Dehate 

The heliocentric versus geocentric debate did not originate with 
Galileo, or even with Copernicus or Ptolemy. Long before Galileo met his 
match with the Catholic Church, the battle was between the sun-centered 
model of the Babylonians and the earth-centered model of the Hebrews 
described in Genesis. 67 The Babylonians were avid astronomers who 
believed that the sun god controlled the world, and naturally the sun 
occupied the center of the universe. They discovered the saros, which they 
used in predicting lunar eclipses. In fact, many centuries later the Greek 
astronomer Hipparchus published a star catalogue taken from the 
Babylonians but written as if it were made from his own observations. 68 

The next combatants were the Indian cosmologists versus the 
continuing Hebrew tradition, specifically from the book Joshua, although 
the Indians had both geocentrists and heliocentrists in their tradition. 69 By 
the time of the Greeks, cosmology was much more sophisticated as 
mathematics, philosophy, and experimentation were added to the debate. 

Conclave, satirized the Jesuits. Ignatius of Loyola is ejected from hell and 
commanded to colonize the moon, a place in which he will not cause much harm. 

67 As Tycho Brahe said to Jewish astronomer David Gans: “Your sages were 
wrong to submit to the non-Jewish scholars. They assented to a lie for the truth lay 
with the Jewish sages” (Andre Neher, Jewish Thought and the Scientific 
Revolution of the Sixteenth Century’: David Gans ( 1541-1613 ) and His Times, 
translated from the French by David Maisel, 1986, p. 218). 

68 G. J. Toomer, “Ptolemy,” Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 1975, p. 191. 

69 Some evidence of heliocentrism is found in the Vedic Sanskrits, the main text of 
Hinduism and most likely the oldest surviving religious texts. The word “Veda” 
means “knowledge” and/or “sacred book.” Subhash Kak writes: “The theory that 
the sun was the ‘lotus’ [the central point] of the sky and that it kept the worlds 
together by its ‘strings of wind’ may have given rise to the heliocentric tradition in 
India.” The Shatapatha Brahmana from the Upanishad era in the 9 th century B.C., 
states: “The sun strings these worlds, [the earth, the planets, the atmosphere], to 
himself on a thread. This thread is the same as the wind” (8:7:3:10). ( Astronomy 
Across Cultures: The History of Non-Western Astronomy, ed., Helaine Selin, 
2000, p. 328). Kak also points out, however, that the earlier Indian astronomers 
adopted geocentrism: “The concepts of sighrocca and mandocca cycles indicate 
that the motion of the planets was fundamentally around the sun, which, in turn, 
went around the earth....The sighrocca maps the motion of the planet around the 
sun to the corresponding set of points around the earth. The sun, with its winds 
that holds the solar system together, goes around the earth” (ibid., p. 329). The 
model in which the planets revolve around the sun but the sun revolves around the 
Earth would be the same model propounded by Tycho Brahe. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

Tke Basic Framework: Crystall ine Sph eres 

No adequate understanding of cosmology is possible without first 
understanding the Greek concept of the crystalline spheres. It is the 
fundamental structure upon which all cosmology would either adhere or 
depart. As noted earlier, the very reason Copernicus rejected the simpler 
geocentric model (later to be demonstrated by Tycho Brahe) was that it 
required him to reject the Greek’s concept of crystalline spheres, even 
though he had already rejected their geocentrism. Apparently, the spheres 
were very important to Copernicus. One reason is that spheres are 
essentially extended circles, and Copernicus believed, as a fundamental 
scientific fact, that all celestial motion had to occur by means of circles. As 
noted, he rejected Ptolemy’s non-circular model based on that very 

Aristotle's Crystalline Spheres 70 

The Greeks, especially after their model was refined by Aristotle, 
believed that the whole cosmos was structured upon dozens of transparent 
spheres. Each sphere had an inner and an outer wall. Attached to the inner 
wall were various celestial bodies. For example, Mars would be embedded 
into the wall of a sphere and the whole sphere rotated around the earth and 

70 See CDROM for animation of Aristotle’s Crystalline Spheres. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

thus carried Mars with it, but since the sphere was transparent, it looked as 
though Mars was revolving around the earth by itself. These spheres were 
permitted to exist far away from the earth and rotate freely because they 
were composed of the fifth element, aether (the other four elements were: 
air, water, fire and earth), which was the lightest or most rarified element 
of the five. 71 Most important is the fact that any extensions in the planets’ 
movement caused by epicyclic or eccentric variations were permitted in 
the space between the inner and outer wall of the sphere. Further, Aristotle 
believed that each sphere rotated around the earth because it was being 
pushed by one of the gods - who was the “unmoved mover.” The 
medievals who later used an Aristotelian framework (but did so through 
Ptolemy’s model) rejected the polytheistic cosmos and replaced it with 
only one Prime Mover who moved the outermost sphere which in turn 
moved the rest of the spheres. 

Prior to Aristotle, the Greek school of astronomy was introduced by 
Anaximander (d. 546 bc) who believed that the Earth was like the central 
hub of a spoked wheel. The rim of the wheel rotated around the earth and 
carried the sun, moon and planets. The moon’s rim was 19 times as big as 
the earth, while the sun’s rim was 27 times as big. He believed that the sun 
and moon were composed of fire but that we saw them only through small 
openings, as if they were at the open end of a trumpet. 72 He did not believe 
the earth was spherical. It was a cylinder with a height three times its 
width and that we lived on the flat side at the top. The earth was suspended 
in space unsupported by anything and was in the exact center of the 
universe. He held that each star was carried by the rim of a wheel and that 
all of the thousands of rims coalesced into a giant spherical shell around 
the earth, although he held that the universe was originally a sphere. 73 His 

71 There were seven basic spheres, one for each of the following: the Moon, 
Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. More elaborate systems have 
the seven spheres incorporating secondary spheres. An eighth sphere outside 
Saturn was filled with all the stars and they were attached to that sphere. Some 
add a ninth sphere for the precession of the equinoxes; a tenth for their trepidation; 
and an eleventh for the variations in the obliquity of the ecliptic. 

72 Hippolytus says of Anaximander: “The heavenly bodies come into being as a 
circle of fire, separated off from the fire in the world and enclosed by air. There 
are certain tubular channels or breathing holes through which the heavenly bodies 
appear; hence eclipses occur when the breathing holes are blocked, and the moon 
appears sometimes waxing and sometimes waning according to whether the 
channels are blocked or open” (Refutation of All Heresies, I). 

73 Pseudo Plutarch writes: “Anaximander maintains that the eternally productive 
cycles of hot and cold separated off in the generation of this world and formed a 
spherical shell of fire surrounding the Earth and its atmosphere like the bark 
around a tree. When this sheath of fire finally tore up and divided into various 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

student, Anaximenes (d. 528 bc) followed him but with variations 
between the movement of the planets and the stars, the latter being 
attached to their crystal sphere but the former moving freely as if on air. 
Parmenides (d. 450 bc) added that the spheres around the Earth were 
evenly spaced. Xenophanes (d. 475 bc) said that the stars moved 
rectilinearly. Empedocles (d. 435 bc) believed the sphere of the stars was 
infinite. Plato (d. 347 bc) in his famous Timaeus continued the concept of 
spheres and specified that they were perfect shapes, but he proposed that 
the planets were spherical bodies set in rotating rings rather than the wheel 
rims of Anaximander. Eudoxus (d. 350 bc) has no extant works but we 
know his cosmology from Aristotle’s Metaphysics , 74 He held that the sun, 
moon and planets moved within 27 spheres. With these additional spheres 
he was the first to attempt an explanation of the retrograde motion of the 
planets. He understood the revolution of the sun around the earth to be 365 
days and 6 hours long, which is very close to our present understanding. 

Callippus (d. 300 bc) added more spheres to Eudoxus’ model, 
employing five spheres for the sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars, 
while giving four spheres for Jupiter and Saturn, making 33 total spheres. 
As was the case with his predecessors, each planet was attached to the 
sphere which carried it around the earth. Aristotle (d. 322 bc), using 
Eudoxus’ model, created a more elaborate system of spheres. With earth in 
the center, the planets revolved around it by the interweaving motion of at 
least 47 but no more than 55 spheres. Distinguishing his from that of 
Eudoxus and Callippus, Aristotle had the spheres interconnected, but each 
sphere was moved by a separate “unmoved mover,” which corresponded 
to one god for each sphere who moves it because he “loves” it. 

wheel-shaped stripes, the sun, moon and the stars were created from it” 
(Stromateis 2). 

74 “Eudoxus supposed that the motion of the sun or of the moon involves, in either 
case, three spheres, of which the first is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the 
second moves in the circle which runs along the middle of the zodiac, and the 
third in the circle which is inclined across the breadth of the zodiac; but the circle 
in which the moon moves is inclined at a greater angle than that in which the sun 
moves. And the motion of the planets involves, in each case, four spheres, and of 
these also the first and second are the same as the first two mentioned above (for 
the sphere of the fixed stars is that which moves all the other spheres, and that 
which is placed beneath this and has its movement in the circle which bisects the 
zodiac is common to all), but the poles of the third sphere of each planet are in the 
circle which bisects the zodiac, and the motion of the fourth sphere is in the circle 
which is inclined at an angle to the equator of the third sphere; and the poles of the 
third sphere are different for each of the other planets, but those of Venus and 
Mercury are the same” (Aristotle’s Metaphysics , Ch. 8, Bk 12). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

There were other developments to the geocentric school from Theaetus 
(d. 369 bc), Heraklides (d. 310 bc), Euclid (d. 265 bc), Hipparchus (d. 120 
bc) and Apollonius (d. 190 bc). Of these, Heraklides made the earth rotate 
on its axis, but put it at the center of the world. Mercury and Venus were 
made to revolve around the sun in epicycles, but the sun and the remaning 
planets revolved around the earth. 75 In fact, because of his somewhat 
unique combination of the geocentric and heliocentric models, historian 
Giovanni Schiaparelli (d. 1910) believes that Heriklides is the precursor of 
both Copernicus’ heliocentric model and Tycho Brahe’s geocentric 
model. 76 

As time went on, Apollonius extended Heraklides’ epicycles beyond 
Mercury and Venus and applied them to the outer planets, and had the 
earth rotating. Hipparchus also used a system of epicycles as well as 
eccentricities, which improved on Apollonius’ model. As Barbour notes: 

Hipparchus’s work is to be see as a most significant step forward 
in the Greek program of finding geometrokinetic explanations 
for why the observed motions of the sun, moon, and planets did 
not fit the divine paradigm of perfect uniform circular 
motion....the problems the astronomers faced were of quite a 
different kind and had very much to do with the specific 
eccentricities of the various planetary orbits. 77 

Tke G reek Heliocentrists 

Pythagoras (d. 495 bc), famous for his geometry theorems, formed 
the Pythagorean school of heliocentrists, or what we might call semi¬ 
heliocentrists or anti-geocentrists, which included such names as: 
Philolaus (d. 385 bc) who put the earth in one of a number of spheres of 
the sun and planets circling a fiery mass. The central fire could not be seen 
because the populated portion of the earth was always facing away from it. 

75 Heraklides’ was used again by Martianus Capella in the 5 th century AD; and 
again, with modifications, by Giovanni Riccioli in 1651 who included Mars in an 
orbit around the sun. The model of Tycho Brahe had all the planets revolving 
around the sun, while the sun revolved around a fixed earth. Riccioli had posited 
seventy-seven arguments against heliocentrism (See C. M. Graney at 

76 I precursori di Copernico nell ’ Antichild, as cited by W. Carl Rufus in The 
Astronomical System of Copernicus, 1923, p. 512, available from Maria Mitchell 

77 Julian B. Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, Vol. 1, The Discovery> of 
Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 118, 127. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

The speed of revolution was dependent on their “harmonic” distances such 
that the nearer bodies to the fire traveled slower then the outer because of 
their “lower tone.” For Philolaus, the sun was merely a spherical mirror 
that reflected the light and heat of the central fire. Hiketas (d. 450 bc) and 
Ekphantus (d. 450 bc) disfavored Philolaus’ model and opted for a 
version in which the sun, moon and planets were fixed, while the earth 
rotated from west to east. 78 Aristarchus (d. 230 bc), who was from the 
same city, Samos, as Pythagorus, is usually credited with having the first 
full-blown heliocentric system. None of Aristarchus’ writings are extant, 
but his cosmological model was described by his contemporary, 
Archimedes (who was himself a heliocentrist). Fie stated that Aristarchus’ 
“hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the 
earth revolves about the sun in the circumference of a circle, the sun lying 
in the middle of the orbit.” 79 Based on his estimates, Aristarchus believed 
the sun had seven times the diameter of the earth and was hundred-folds 
more voluminous. Some believe this huge discrepancy in size led him to 
put the earth in orbit around the sun. Others hold that it was his claim to 
have finally detected a parallax of the sun by measuring it against the first 
and third quarter’s of the moon’s phases. A lack of parallax for the sun 
was apparently Aristotle’s chief objection to heliocentrism. We know 
today, however, the same solar parallax can be shown from a geocentric 
system; and perhaps the reason Aristarchus’ heliocentric model did not 

78 See J. L. E. Dreyer, A History’ of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, originally 
under the 1905 title: History ; of Planetary Systems from Thales to Kepler, Dublin, 
Ireland; Olaf Pederson, A Survey of the Almagest, Odense, Denmark, Odense 
University Press, 1974; Pierre Dunhem, To Save the Phenomena: An Essay on the 
Idea of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1969; W. 
Carl Rufus, “The Astronomical System of Copernicus,” Popular Astronomy, 

79 The complete citation is as follows: “You King Gelon are aware the ‘universe’ 
is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere the center of which is the 
center of the Earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the center 
of the Sun and the center of the Earth. This is the common account as you have 
heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of 
certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, 
that the universe is many times greater than the ‘universe’ just mentioned. His 
hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth 
revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the 
middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of fixed stars, situated about the same 
center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to 
revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of 
the sphere bears to its surface” The Sand Reckoner (Greek: Apxi(ir)5r)<; *Pappixr|(;, 
Archimedes Psammites) in Arenarius, 1, 4-7. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

become popular was that his contemporaries knew such to be the case. 
Aristarchus also believed the stars were at huge distance from earth and 
that the earth rotated on its axis. Another heliocentrist was Seleucus (b. 
190) who adopted Aristarchus’ model. 

Tke Geocentric Victory 

We might say that the centuries long battle 
between the heliocentric and geocentric models 
was finally won by the geocentrists when 
Claudius Ptolemy, the Greek astronomer from 
Alexandria, Egypt, introduced his very refined 
model. His model was so successful that Islamic 
astronomers created various versions to help 
improve his accuracy. As Kak notes: “The 
geometrical structure of the universe conceived 
by Muslim astronomers of the early Islamic 
period (ca. 800-1050) is more or less that 
expounded in Ptolemy’s Almagest, with the 
system of eight spheres being regarded 
essentially as mathematical models.” 80 
Essentially, Ptolemy extended the use of epicycles begun by Heraklides 
and Apollonius. 

Epicycle comes from the Greek epi, which means “added on,” and 
cycle, which refers to a circle or something continuing in the same motion. 
In other words, Ptolemy added a smaller circle onto an already existing 

so “Kak also says: “Other significant Islamic modifications to Ptolemaic planetary 
models, devised to overcome the philosophical objections to the notion of an 
equant and the problem of the variation in lunar distance inherent in Ptolemy’s 
lunar model, belong to the later period of Islamic astronomy. There were two 
main the thirteenth century (notably with al-TusI and his colleagues) 
and Damascus in the fourteenth (with Ibn al-Sha(ir), and the other developed in 
the late twelfth century (with al-Bitrujl) ( Astronomy Across Cultures: The History 
of Non-Western Astronomy, ed., Helaine Selin, 2000, pp. 588-589). Consult the 
CDrom for animations of the models of al-TusI, Ibn al-Shatir. and al-Bitrujl. Prior 
to these developments were the heliocentric efforts of Aryabhata (476-550 A.D.) 
Kak adds: “It is not certain that Aryabhata was the originator of the rotation of the 
earth. It appears that the rotation of the earth is inherent in the notion that the sun 
never sets that we find in the Aitareya Brahmana 2:7: “The sun never really sets 
or rises. In that they think of him ‘He is setting,’ having reached the end of the 
day, he inverts himself; thus he makes evening below, day above.. ..He never sets, 
indeed, he never sets” (ibid., p. 368). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

larger circle. The larger circle was called a deferent, the smaller an 
epicycle. The reason Ptolemy did so was that the Greek’s, mainly through 
the work of Hipparchus, had discovered that the planets and the sun did 
not move in perfect regularity. For example, the sun did not stay the same 
length of time in each of the four seasons. Spring was 94.5 days; summer 
92.5 days; autumn 88.8 days; winter 90.8 days. This was due to the fact 
that the whole system was a bit off-center. In order to compensate for the 
resulting irregular movements, Ptolemy used the epicycle quite 

But the epicycle was not what ultimately separated Ptolemy from his 
predecessors, since they had also used more primitive epicycles in one 
form or another. Ptolemy was distinguished because he broke with the 
tradition that the sun and planets had to revolve around the earth at 
uniform speed. Ptolemy made them move non-uniformly and thus he 
answered why the sun spent more time in one quadrant of its orbit than 

Ptolemy's Epicycles 

Direction of Deferent Orbit 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

The device that allowed him to accomplish this victory was the 
equant, or what we might better describe as an “equalizer.” In order to 
account for the off-centeredness of the orbits, Ptolemy created an 
imaginary point inside their orbits that was off-center. Barbour calls it “the 
crowning achievement of Hellenistic astronomy” but also an “ad hoc 
introduction made in extermis when all traditionally accepted means to 
reconcile the data had failed.” 81 In brief, as Ptolemy moved the center of 
the orbit a little off-center, he created a point from which the planet would 
consequently move at a uniform speed from the equant’s point of view, but 
move at a non-uniform speed from the center’s point of view. 


Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Ptolemy’s equant is that it 
was essentially the basis upon which Kepler, over fourteen centuries later, 
would also solve the problem of irregular orbits, although he would do so 

J. Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, pp. 163, 171, 208. Dennis Rawlins 
believes that Ptolemy commandeered the equant from his Greek predecessors, 
namely, Hipparchus, since it appears that Ptolemy took a lot of other material 
from them, especially the orbit of Mars. Although Rawlins has no hard evidence 
of the equant before Ptolemy, he retorts: “To suppose that no astronomer before 
Claudius Ptolemy’s time came up with a theoretical model that could eliminate 
this glaringly monstrous inadequacy of the eccentric model is to imagine that the 
ancients were a lot less resourceful than is suggested by the elegant remnants we 
possess of third century BC mathematics (e.g., Archimedes and Apollonios) 440 
years before Ptolemy.” Rawlins believes that Ptolemy was heavily influenced by 
his geocentric commitments. (“Ancient heliocentrists, Ptolemy, and the equant,” 
Dennis Rawlins, Physics Dept., Loyola College, Baltimore, American Journal of 
Physics 55 (3), March, 1987, pp. 235-239). 

82 (1) the sun, moving clockwise around the Earth (5) inside a crystalline sphere 
(2) whose center is the equant (6), which is off-center from the complimentary 
space (3) but centered on complimentary space (4) 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

for the heliocentric system. By using elliptical orbits and foci and adjusting 
them as needed for each planet, Kepler could make them go faster in their 
orbits at the perihelion point (closet to the sun) as opposed to the aphelion 
(farthest from the sun). But Kepler’s use of two foci in an ellipse was 
virtually the same as Ptolemy placing the equant and the Earth on opposite 
sides of the center. As Kepler could change the distance between the foci 
and the center to give greater eccentricity, Ptolemy could change the 
distance between the equant and the Earth to achieve whatever degree of 
non-uniform movement required. As a result, both Ptolemy’s and Kepler’s 
planets would sweep out the same area per unit time, but Ptolemy’s 
discovery of this principle antedated Kepler by almost a millennium and a 
half . 83 The reason Kepler is so adulated is that he was the first one to apply 
it to the heliocentric system, whereas Ptolemy had used it exclusively for 
the geocentric. 

All in all, the equant allowed Ptolemy’s system to work very well. A 
problem came, however, when minor discrepancies in the positions and 
speeds of the planets (due to their own perturbations from their mutual 
gravitational attraction) became quite noticeable as they added themselves 
up over the centuries, thus throwing off the Julian calendar by weeks and 
even months. As we will see, it was this problem with the calendar that 
would eventually lead Copernicus to believe that Ptolemy’s model had to 
be rejected rather than adjusted. 

Ptolemy's Equant 

83 See CDROM for the animation comparing Ptolemy’s equant and Kepler’s 
elliptical orbits. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

Kepler's Ellipse as an Epicycle 

The Deferent/Epicycle Covers Same Area in Same Time as the Ellipse 

The other major problem for Ptolemy was that neither he nor his 
Greek predecessors kn ew the distances between the earth, the sun and the 
planets. Thus, among other difficulties, he didn’t know how big to make 
Venus’ deferent or even its epicycle, but he did decide to make it smaller 
than the deferent of the sun. Although this accounted for the position of 
Venus, it did not account for the phases of Venus. As Kitty Ferguson puts 

In Ptolemaic astronomy, Venus always lay between the Earth 
and the Sun. For that reason, if Venus sheds no light of its own 
but only shines with reflected sunlight, observers on Earth 
should never see the face of Venus anywhere near fully lit. In 
other words, it should never be equivalent to a full Moon . 84 

This was a discrepancy that eventually made Galileo believe he was 
on the right track in rejecting Ptolemy’s system. Ferguson adds that the 
problem would have persisted “even if Venus’ epicycle had been 
miscalculated and was actually on the other side of the Sun from the 
Earth....Finally, Galileo had found persuasive observational evidence that 
Ptolemaic astronomy was inferior to Copemican astronomy.” But is this 
true? Was Ptolemy trapped by putting Venus inside the sun’s orbit? 
Perhaps, but Ptolemy could have put the sun on an epicycle and put Venus 
on an epicycle around the sun but, of course, he, having no telescope with 

84 Kitty Ferguson, Measuring the Universe, p. 92. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

which to view Venus as Galileo did, had never seen its phases in order to 
know he even had a problem. As Barbour notes: 

The phases of the planets, visible through the telescope, 
especially in the case of Venus, provided strong confirmation of 
the distances that Copernicus had postulated and demonstrated 
beyond all doubt that Venus orbited the sun....Galileo was 
convinced that, in confirming Copernicus’s prediction, these 
observations proved the earth’s mobility. 

Barbour makes us privy to a little known secret of Ptolemy’s model: 

In fact, they were still compatible with what one might call the 
‘essential’ Ptolemaic system....The Ptolemaic theory left six free 
parameters that had to be fixed by guesswork. No violence was 
done to the essentials of the Ptolemaic theory by fixing these in 
such a way that the deferents of Mercury and Venus were taken 
equal to the earth-sun distance and the deferents of the superior 
planets to their actual distances from the sun. This choice has the 
consequence that the geometrical arrangement of the Copemican 
system (when treated as here in the zero-eccentricity 
approximation) is exactly reproduced, the only difference being 
that in one system the earth is at rest, in the other the sun. This in 
fact is the system which Tycho Brahe proposed... As far as 
astronomical observations are concerned, the Tychonic system, 
which is a special case of the Ptolemaic one, is kinematically 
identical to Copernicus’s except in its relation to the distant 
stars . 85 

In other words, the phases of Venus were no proof for the heliocentric 
system. The fact that Ptolemy did not know the distances between the 
heavenly bodies was compensated by the fact that his system incoiporated 
six variables to account for such u nk nown quantities, thus making his 
model very pliable to what would actually be observed in the future. The 
simple fact is, Copernicus, influenced by many non-scientific factors, 

85 Julian B. Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, Vol. 1, The Discovery of 
Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 224-225, italics his. Barbour’s 
second volume, Mach’s Principle, General Relativity and Guage Theory, was 
never formally published, although Dr. Barbour gave me a complete copy of his 
manuscript in preparation for his interview in the documentary. The Principle, 
produced by Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC, Los Angeles, CA. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

simply chose not to make those adjustments and instead wanted to throw 
the baby out with the bath water, as it were. 

Galileo's original drawing of Venus and its phases 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 
The Real Truth about the Copernican Solar System 

Unbeknownst to almost all modern-day believers in the solar system 
of Nicholas Copernicus 86 is one stark but incontrovertible fact: the popular 
idea of the Earth revolving around the sun has never been proven. Despite 
all the pretentious claims purporting to have proof for heliocentrism 
( which are made on the basis of such phenomena as stellar parallax, stellar 
aberration, retrograde motion, the Foucault pendulum, the Coriolis effect, 
meteor showers, red shift, ring lasers, the equatorial bulge of the Earth and 
geosynchronous satellites: all of which, as we demonstrate in this volume, 
do not prove, in the least, the heliocentric system), honest scientists will 
candidly admit that heliocentrism is merely their preferred model of 
cosmology, but certainly not the proven one. 

Nicholas Copernicus: 1473 -1543 

86 Nicolaus Copernicus is the Latinized version of the original Polish name 
Nicklaus Koppernigk. While the spelling of the first name varies between 
Nicklaus, Niklas, and Nicolaus, the last name has had more of a variety: 
Coppemic, Koppernieck, Koppernik, Koppernigk, Cupernick, and Kupernick. 
Copernicus signed his name in various ways as well: Copernic, Coppernig, 
Coppemik, Copphernic, but in later years mostly as Copernicus. He is also 
referred to as Nicklaus Koppernigk Warmiensis, since he was from the province 
of Warmia in Poland. Ironically, in the Frankonian local dialect of Poland, 
koepperneksch still means “a far-fetched, cockeyed proposition” (Koestler, The 
Sleepwalkers, p. 191). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

Historically speaking, stellar parallax is particularly important to this 
debate, since a claim of finding the first parallax (and hence a false claim 
that heliocentrism was a proven fact), may have had something to do with 
the authorities under Pope Gregory XVI removing Copernicus and 
Galileo’s works from the Index of Forbidden Books in 1835, although the 
pope gave no specific reason for the removal. 87 Even more intriguing is the 
fact that Gregory XVI, who was previously Cardinal Capellari when he 
served on the 1822 commission to give Canon Settele an imprimatur for 
his book on heliocentrism, appears to have been persuaded by a clever 
fabrication created by Frs. Antonio Grandi and Marizio Olivieri, the latter 
being the Commissary General of the Holy Office. In 1822 they posited 
that the only reason the Church declared the Copemican system formally 
heretical in 1616 and 1633 (at the trial of Galileo) was that it was a 
“defective” model because it did not contain elliptical orbits of the 
planets. 88 Thi s was, indeed, a blatant fabrication since the ecclesiastical 

87 As cited by astrophysicist and historian, Owen Gingerich, at St. Edmunds 
Public Lecture series, titled: “Empirical Proof and/or Persuasion,” March 13, 
2003, wherein he writes: “Hence, ironically, what persuaded the Catholic Church 
to take Copernicus’ book off the Index was an ultimately false claim for the 
discovery of an annual stellar parallax. The new edition of the Index appearing in 
1835 finally omitted De Revolutionibus, three years before a convincing stellar 
parallax observation was at last published.” Gingerich cites his source for this 
information as Pierre-Noel Mayaud, S.J., La Condemnation des Livres 
Coperniciens et sa Revocation: d la lumiere de documents inedits des 
Congregation de I’lndex et de l’Inquisition (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universita 
Gregoriana, 1997), no page number given. One of the contentions of our book 
Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, is that, not only was the 1835 
rescission of Copernicus’ and Galileo’s works presumptuous in light of the false 
parallax claims, even after 1838 (when Bessel published the first authenticated 
parallax) the case for heliocentrism was not proven, since parallax can also be 
explained equally well from a geocentric model. 

88 As noted by Annibale Fantoli in Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the 
Church, p. 520, stating: “Father Grandi.. .working in agreement with Olivieri and 
basing himself on his argumentation, he had tried to realize the objective of saving 
the good name of the Holy See, substantially by emphasizing the fact that the 
Copernican system, by then recognized even by Catholic authors, had been 
purified from errors and inconsistencies which had made it unacceptable in its 
original form. This was equivalent to maintaining that the Church had not erred in 
1616 by putting on the Index a work at that time so defective at the level of 
physics and that now the Church was legitimately authorized to approve it after its 
errors were corrected. And it was, as a matter of fact, this which ‘was sugested’ to 
poor Settele to make skillfully known in his work.” Maurice Finocchiaro, in his 
recent book, Retrying Galileo, p. 251, gives more detail, as taken from Olivieri’s 
November 1820 Summation, titled, “Ristretto di Ragione, e di Fatto.” T]3 0: “Along 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

records clearly show that Copernicanism was rejected purely because it 
made the earth move, not because it made the earth move incorrectly. 
What may have led to this fabrication was that, at this precise time in 
history, the Church was rather handicapped to discover the actual 
stipulations from the Galileo affair because all the records from the 1633 
trial were in Napoleon’s possession in France, since he had confiscated 
them while storming of the Vatican in 1809. Fie didn’t return them until 
1845, ten years after Galileo’s name had been removed from the Index. 
The important details of these events will be covered thoroughly in volume 
2 of this work. 

Suffice it to say, a thorough study of the original Copemican system, 
the very system the pre-1641 Galileo brought to the Catholic Church and 
demanded she accept, reveals a model racked with so many problems one 
wonders how it ever saw the light of day. In 1514 Copernicus was asked 
by Pope Leo X to use his talents to help fix the calendar. The calendar had 
been causing slight but pestering problems for many centuries. The last 
revision was initiated by Julius Caesar, who employed his astronomers to 
create what we now know as the Julian calendar, a calibration that 
incorporated 36514 days per year, a marked improvement from the 
previous 355 days per year. 89 As noted, even the Greek astronomer 

with modem astronomers, Settele does not teach that the sun is at the center of the 
world: for it is not the center of the fixed stars; it is not the center of heavy bodies, 
which fall toward the center of our world, namely of the earth; nor is it the center 
of the planetary system because it does not lie in the middle, or center, but to one 
side at one of the foci of the elliptical orbits that all planets trace. Still less does 
he teach that the sun is motionless; on the contrary, it has a rotational motion 
around itself and also a translational motion which it performs while carrying 
along the outfit of all its planets” (ibid., p. 205). But unfortunately, Finocchiaro 
perpetuates the same fabrication when he concludes: “That is, the Church had 
been right in condemning the latter from a scientific point of view, because 
Galileo had also upheld heliocentrism in its unsatisfactory Copernican form...” 
(ibid., p. 520). The Church condemned Copernicanism for one reason only: it 
made the earth move. For more information on this issue, see Volume 3, Galileo 
Was Wrong: The Church Was Right. 

89 In the pre-Christian era, there were two dating systems: (1) a dating system 
based on the dates of the reigning monarch. In this system, the foundation date is 
753 B.C., which is the foundation date of Rome under the auspices of Romulus. 
The Romans titled this foundation date ab urbe condita (meaning: “from the 
foundation of the city”). Their year began on April 21 st and they had 355 days in 
their calendar. This inaccurate calendar remained in force until the time of Julius 
Caesar, who in 46 B.C., under the tutelage of the Greek astronomer Sisogenes, 
increased the number of days in the year 46 B.C. to 445. Thereafter (45 BC and 
onward) there were 36514 days in the year, and the year would begin on January 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Eudoxus (d. 350 bc) knew that the year was 365 days and 6 hours long. 
But as good as Ptolemy’s model was, it was not good at incoiporating the 
perturbations of the planets caused by their mutual gravitational attraction 
(and neither has any other system). 

One of the reasons Copernicus was invited by the pope was that he 
had published a precursor of his heliocentric theory between the years 
1510-1514, titled Commentariolus (“Little Commentary”) antedating his 
more famous work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, which was 
released some thirty years later, in 1543, the year of Copernicus’ death. It 
is in the Commentariolus that Copernicus makes his first claim that the 
Ptolemaic system is unsatisfactory, yet admits that it is “consistent with the 
data.” 90 Among the more salient features of the treatise are Copernicus’ 
three major premises: (1) “That the Earth is not the center of the universe, 
only of the moon’s orbit and of terrestrial gravity”; (2) “That the apparent 
daily revolution of the firmament is due to the Earth’s rotation on its own 
axis”; (3) “that the apparent annual motion of the sun is due to the fact that 
the Earth, like the other planets, revolves around the sun.” 

Copernicus’ motivation for introducing his new system was that he 
was dissatisfied with Ptolemy’s. As we noted earlier, however, whatever 
complexity and futility Copernicus saw in Ptolemy’s model, he attributed 
this to Ptolemy’s departure from the circle as the only possible movement 
for celestial bodies. 

In De revolutionibus orbium coelestium he writes: 

We must however confess that these movements are circular or 

are composed of many circular movements, in that they maintain 

1 st . (2) a dating system based on significant events. The commencement of the 
Olympic games in 776 B.C. is the foundation date. Every four years, the Greeks 
recorded the date of the Olympiads, abbreviated “OL.” 1 A.D. would be the 754 th 
year of the foundation of Rome, or the fourth year of the 194 th Olympiad. 

90 Commentariolus, p. 57, as cited by Paul Feyerabend, Against Method, p. 71, n. 
14. The full title is: Nicolai Copernici de hypothesibus motuum coelestium a se 
constitutes commentariolus. It had no name until given one by Tycho Brahe 
(Repcheck, Copernicus’ Secret, p. 185). Its exact date is uncertain, but evidence 
points to 1510-1514, predating De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by at least 
three decades. Koestler remarks on its effect: “...the first pebble had fallen into 
the pond and gradually, in the course of the following years, the ripples spread by 
rumour and hearsay in the Republic of Letters. This led to the paradoxical result 
that Canon Koppernigk enjoyed a certain fame, or notoriety, among scholars for 
some thirty years without publishing anything in print, without teaching at a 
university or recmiting disciples. It is a unique case in the history of science. The 
Copernican system spread by evaporation or osmosis, as it were” ( Sleepwalkers, 
p. 149). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

these irregularities [of motion] in accordance with a constant law 
and with fixed periodic returns; and that could not take place, if 
they were not circular. For it is only the circle which can bring 
back what is past and over with.. ,” 91 

The Commentarilous: 1510 ~ 1513 

So enamored was Copernicus with the circle that he retained 
Aristotle’s crystalline spheres as the perfect mold for the circle. As 
scientific historian from Flarvard, I. Bernard Cohen, reveals: 

In both De revolutionibus and the Commentariolus Copernicus 
attacks the Ptolemaic astronomy not because in it the sun moves 
rather than the earth, but because Ptolemy has not strictly 
adhered to the precept that all celestial motions must be 
explained only by uniform circular motions or combinations of 
such circular motions. Ptolemy had recognized that an accurate 
representation of planetary motion necessitated the abandoning 
of uniform circular motion, and he boldly introduced what was 

91 On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, trans., Wallis, p. 12. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

later called an “equant,” from which nonuniform motion along 
an arc would appear uniform. From the point of view of 
accuracy, this was a great step forward, indeed, the best 
representation of planetary motion before Kepler. But 
Copernicus considered the use of an equant to be a violation of 
fundamental principles and devoted his original astronomical 
research to devising a system of sun, planets, moon, and stars in 
which the planets and the moon glide with uniform motion along 
a circle or with some combination of such motions. 92 




bus orbium coekfhu.n, 

Libn v l. 



nbut atqj rrccntibus obfmutiombuii rrliicute hieautor. 
Prxicrra tabula* cxpcdtf as luculrntasip addi Jit. cx qui* 
buscofJcm motus ad quodut\ mnpus Mat Ik » 
nutum ItuJiofus taciUifLc^aLtu 
larc poimt. 

irrn, nr liehis Rrvotvrioxvj* smcolai 
Copnnid Narra no M Gcorgium lojchi 
mum liheti.'J n ad D loan Sen jar 



De revolutionibus orbium coelestium: 1543 

92 I. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science, 1985, 1994, p. 112. He adds: 
“Copernicus mentioned with approval in both the Commentariolus and De 
revolutionibus the ancient doctrine of Callippus and Eudoxus, in which 
combinations of circular motions (or rotations of spheres) had been used to 
account for the phenomena” (ibid). Aristotle has “a body that moves in a circle 
has neither heaviness nor lightness for it cannot change its distance from the 
center” (De Coelo, 269b34f). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

In light of this singular motivation, it appears that the legacy of the 
Copemican revolution is based on a fallacious premise - that circles are 
somehow superior to ovals. Cohen adds: 

He then turned to ancient authors in order to find out whether in 
any of their writings they might have proposed alternative 
doctrines to Ptolemy’s. During this study, he said, he 
encountered the ideas of the Pythagoreans concerning the motion 
of the earth. It was only then, assured by a tradition of antiquity, 
that in humanist fashion he began to consider the astronomical 
consequences of the earth’s orbit, since he knew that “others 
before me had been given the same liberty” (“quia sciebam aliis 
ante me hanc concessam libertatem”). 93 

Copernicus seems to have tried to take the best from each school of 
Greek cosmology. While he borrowed a moving Earth from Pythagoras, he 
commandeered the crystalline spheres of Aristotle who believed that the 
Earth was motionless in the center. Contrary to popular opinion, 
Copernicus’ solar system was not one of free floating planets pushed by 
natural forces around the sun, but the same Greek idea of crystal spheres, 
within which the planets were hung, that rotated around a center point. As 
Cohen puts it, “the only thing Copernicus did was transform the old Greek 
idea of earth-centered spheres into new sun-centered spheres.” This can be 
seen in the original drawings made by Copernicus. Noel Swerdlow points 
out that in his manuscript drawing Copernicus has “seven numbered 
captions and eight circles, so that it would appear that the captions do refer 
to the seven spaces between the circles,” which correspond to “the spheres 
themselves, each being of a certain thickness.. .and everywhere contiguous 
to the sphere above and below it.” 94 Hence Cohen remarks that 
Copernicus’ title, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (“On the 
Revolution of the Celestial Spheres”) has the operative word “Spheres” for 
the very reason that he intended on keeping the Greek spheres in his 
cosmology. Later drawings of Copernicus’ system tend to hide this fact, 
since the captions for the circles are put outside the circles’ boundary. 95 

n Ibid., p. 488. 

94 Noel Swerdlow, “Pseudodoxica Copernicana: or, enquiries into very many 
received tenents and commonly presumed truths, mostly concerning spheres,” 
Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 26:108-158, 1976, as cited in 
Cohen’s Revolution in Science, p. 110. The diagram of Copernicus’ original 
system is now housed in the Jagiellonian Library, Cracow, Poland. 

95 E.g., Encyclopedia of Astronomy, 2004, uses outside captions but claims it is a 
“Diagram of the heliocentric universe from.. .De revolutionibus of 1543” (p. 103). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo ana the Truth about Copernicanism 

Planets inside the circles, published 1543 

Apparently, Copernicus understood his model as only an improvement on 
Ptolemy rather than a revolution in thinking. As Cohen notes, the “order 
and mode of presentation closely follow the plan of Ptolemy’s 
Almagest ,” 96 

In that sense we might say that Copernicus’ model had more of a 
psychological and philosophical influence than it had in improving the 
knowledge of the heavenly orbs. Still, in his “improvements,” Barbour 
opines that Copernicus “comes under suspicion of plagiarism. In De 
revolutionibus his method of eliminating the equant is identical to Gutb al- 
Dln’s, while the TusI couple is used both in his theory of precession and in 
his model of Mercury’s motion...his lunar theory is essentially that of Ibn 
al-shatir.” 97 Barbour adds that the only thing that may save him from the 
charge is that independent discoveries are “commonplace in science.” 

In any case, since the Commentariolus allowed Copernicus to enjoy a 
certain distinction among various astronomers and intellectuals, he seemed 
a likely candidate to offer some help in fixing the calendar. Copernicus 
informed the pope, however, that a further improvement could not be 
made until the motions of the sun and moon were more precisely 

96 Revolution in Science, pp. 109-110. 

97 Absolute or Relative Motion, p. 231. 


Chapter 1: The New Galileo and the T ruth about Copernicanism 

puldimimo mnploljmpidor bmcln ■tioud me HorUocopo 
n<Tci,quim unde totum (Trnul pofrii lMuminarrTSiquIdem noa 
incptcquuUm Imcmim mundt.jlij nxmcm. if nrtrtofrm oo* 
% Qm - Trimcgifhiiuilibikm Dcum.SophotlnEksfln iruutn»? 
omntiJu pro&Ao anquam in folio rc gill Sol rrRdcni arxum 
igcnicm guba-nix AfWum Ewnfllim. Tdhw quoqr remlmc 
tnud/rur luniri roiniftfrio .fed m Anftocdtt dr amrruJibut 
air.maxuTU 1^,, ^ tcrri togmiionr habrt.Coodper intmii 
oouurn, SC imprrgtuiur inmio panu. Inocnimm igiror Tub 


Planets outside the circles, post-1543 

coordinated, and thus he declined the pope’s invitation. 98 Still, various 
Vatican officials continued to make overtures toward Copernicus. For 
example, in 1533, the personal secretary of Pope Clement VII, Johann 
Albrecht of Widmanstadt, gave a lecture on the heliocentric system to a 

98 Copernicus was correct about the difficulty, but such precision is not needed to 
coordinate a calendar. Still, the moon’s motions remain one of the most 
complicated of all celestial bodies. As Kuhn notes: “The moon travels around the 
ecliptic faster and less steadily than the sun. On the average it completes one 
journey through the zodiac in 27'A days, but the time required for any single 
journey may differ from the average by as much as 7 hours....Successive new 
moons may be separated by intervals of either 29 or 30 days, and only a complex 
mathematical theory, demanding generations of systematic observation and study, 
can determine the length of a specified future month. Other difficulties derive 
from the incommensurable lengths of the average lunar and solar cycles” (The 
Coperniccm Revolution, pp. 46-47). It is also known that the moon drifts 
tangentially from its orbit about 4cm/year. Hoyle adds: “The two most striking 
bodies in the sky, the Sun and Moon, cause difficulties at the outset, even before 
we come to the planets” {Nicolaus Copernicus, p. 53). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

chosen audience in the Vatican gardens." Then, under Paul III in 1535, 
Cardinal Nikolaus von Schoenberg became interested in Copernicus and 
requested Theodoric of Radzyn to copy all of Copernicus’ writings and 
have them sent to Rome. He then encouraged Copernicus in a private letter 
of 1536: “In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the 
lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe.... I entreat you, most 
learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of 
yours to scholars.” 100 

99 Fantoli adds that Albrecht “had probably received his information on the 
Copernican theory from Theodoric of Radzyn, who at that time represented at 
Rome the chapter of Warmia, to which Copernicus as canon also belonged.” 
Rewarded with an ancient codex, Albrecht wrote these words on it: “The Supreme 
Pontiff Clement VII gave me this codex in Rome in the year 1533 after which I 
had explained to him the opinion of Copernicus on the motion of the Earth in the 
Vatican gardens in the presence of Cardinals Francesco Orsini and Giuseppe 
Salviati, of Giovanni Pietro, vescovo di Viterbo, and of the doctor, Matteo 
Curzio” (For Copernicanism and for the Church, p. 41). Pope Clement VII was 
the nephew of Lorenzo Medici, who ruled as the Grand Duchy of Tuscany from 
1449-1492. The Grand Duchy of Tuscany was the head of about a half-dozen 
smaller Duchies in northern Italy (Duchy of Urbino to the west. Duchy of Modena 
to the north, etc.). Florence was in Tuscany, while Rome was part of the papal 
states directly to the south of Tuscany. Below the papal states was the kingdom of 
Naples and Sicily governed by Spain. Galileo would often seek refuge in Florence 
away from the pope in Rome, but he was often called back to Rome on such 

100 The complete letter states: “Some years ago word reached me concerning your 
proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a 
very high regard for you, and also to congratulate our contemporaries among 
whom you enjoyed such great prestige. For I had learned that you had not merely 
mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had 
also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the 
sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe; that the eighth 
heaven remain perpetually motionless and fixed; and that, together with the 
elements included in its sphere, the moon, situated between the heavens of Mars 
and Venus, revolves around the sun in the period of a year. I have also learned that 
you have written an exposition of this whole system of astronomy, and have 
computed the planetary motions and set them down in tables, to the greatest 
admiration of all. Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most 
learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to 
scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the 
sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is 
relevant to this subject. Moreover, I have instructed Theodoric of Reden to have 
everything copied in your quarters at my expense and dispatched to me. If you 
gratify my desire in this matter, you will see that you are dealing with a man who 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

That Cardinal Schoenberg was going against all previous Catholic 
tradition in his praise of Copernicus’ system was certainly out of the 
ordinary. Schoenberg was a progressive cleric who believed the Church 

needed to be reformed. Beyond that, 
however, the question lingers as to why such 
interest was showered on Copernicus’ book, 
since the detailed math and geometry was 
somewhat beyond his expertise to judge, not 
to mention the fact that he was well aware of 
the geocentric tradition of the Catholic 
Church stemming from the consensus of the 
Church Fathers and medievals. Something 
else was influencing Schoenberg and his 
immediate superior, Clement VII, for both to 
look favorably upon Copernicus. Part of the 
interest may have been generated by the 
persuasive lectures by Albrecht of Widmanstadt concerning Copernicus’ 
Commentariolus. But due to the severity with which Paul III (1548), Paul 
V (1616) and Urban VIII (1633) would eventually condemn heliocentrism, 
Schoenberg was treading on uncharted territory. Whatever the real impetus 
for his interest, Schoenberg died the year after he wrote his 1536 letter to 
Copernicus, and Clement VII died the year after Albrecht’s lectures. Paul 
III became pope in 1534 and a much more ominous cloud came over the 

In 1541, Copernicus summoned the courage to present his work to 
Paul III, at least under the pretext that his work was merely a 
“hypothetical” model and that he had no intentions of promoting it as the 
actual system. 101 Copernicus records this sequence of events in the 
Introduction to De revolutionibus: 

is zealous for your reputation and eager to do justice to so fine a talent. Farewell. 
Rome, 1 November 1536.” 

101 Protestant reformer, Andreas Osiander, who wrote the Introduction to De 
revolutionibus (although he did so anonymously so as to leave room for the 
inference that Copernicus himself wrote it) and George Rheticus, Copernicus’ 
Protestant confidant who vigorously sought for the publication of the book against 
his master’s reticence, had different plans, however. Osiander’s April 20, 1541 
letter to Rheticus reveals the ploy: “The Aristotelians and theologians will easily 
be placated if they are told that several hypotheses can be used to explain the same 
apparent motions.. .and eventually they will go over to the opinion of the author” 
(quoted in Johannes Kepler’s Apologia Tychonis contra Ursum, and published in 
the same’s Opera Omnia, ed. Frisch, I, pp. 236-276, cited in Koestler’s, The 
Sleepwalkers, p. 171). Based on a June 1542 letter from T. Forsther to J. Schrad, 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

For not many years ago under Leo X when the Lateran Council 
was considering the question of reforming the Ecclesiastical 
Calendar, no decision was reached, for the sole reason that the 
magnitude of the year and the months and the movements of the 
sun and moon had not yet been measured with sufficient 
accuracy. From that time on I gave attention to making more 
exact observations of these things and was encouraged to do so 
by that most distinguished man, Paul, Bishop of Fossombrone, 
who had been present at those deliberations. But what have I 
accomplished in this matter I leave to the judgment of Your 
Floliness in particular and to that of all other learned 
mathematicians. 102 

Despite all the introductory fanfare, De revolutionibus was certainly 
not a smash hit in the annals of book publishing. The first run was a 
thousand copies, which never sold out. There were only four reprints in the 
next four hundred years. Compared to other books on astronomy being 
sold at that time, including Ptolemy’s Almagest, whose reprints were in the 
hundreds, De revolutionibus had one reprint prior to 1700. 103 One reason 

Koestler reasons that Copernicus knew of Osiander’s Introduction but allowed it 
to be attributed to himself, and thus it became “the greatest scandal in the history 
of science” {ibid., p. 169). Koestler concludes: “There is a strangely consistent 
parallel between Copernicus’ character, and the humble, devious manner in which 
the Copernican revolution entered through the back door of history, preceded by 
the apologetic remark: ‘Please don’t take seriously - it is all meant in fun, for 
mathematicians only, and highly improbable indeed’” {ibid., p. 175). 

102 On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, trans. Charles G. Wallis, 1995, p. 7. 

103 These included Jesuit Christopher Clavius’ book Treatise on the Sphere, 
reprinted nineteen times; Philip Melanchthon’s Doctrine of Physics, reprinted 
seventeen times, which refuted Copernicus’ book. Claudius Ptolemaeus’ book was 
originally titled paBripaTiKTi auxa^u; {Mathematike Syntaxis ) in ad 142 but was 
renamed by Arab astronomers Almagest, which means “the greatest.” As Toomer 
notes: “It was dominant to an extent and for a length of time which is unsurpassed 
by any scientific work except Euclid’s Elements.... In the late eighth and ninth 
centuries, with the growth of interest in Greek science in the Islamic world, the 
Almagest was translated, first into Syriac, then, several times, into Arabic. In the 
middle of the twelfth century no less than five such versions were still 
available.. ..Two of these translations are still extant, those of al-Hajjaj and Ishaq- 
Thabit. In them we find the title of Ptolemy’s treatise given as ‘al-mjsty’. This is 
undoubtedly derived.. .from a Greek form pEYiorri (?sc. ouvra^u;), meaning 
‘greatest [treatise]’, but it is only later that it was incorrectly vocalized as al- 
majastl, whence are derived the mediaeval Latin ‘almagesti,’ ‘almagestum,’ the 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

for its unpopularity was its unreadability. It was choppy, obtuse, and 
pedantic. The thrust of the theory fills fewer than twenty pages at the 
beginning of the book, roughly five percent of the whole treatise. More 
than half the book is filled with useless charts that prove nothing for 
Copernicus’ case. When the book reaches its end, there is little left of the 
original teaching, and thus Copernicus can offer no concluding statement, 
even though it was promised many times in the text. Truth be told, the 
main reason for its unpopularity was that it offered no real improvement 
over Ptolemy’s system. In the Introduction, Copernicus claims to have rid 
cosmology of Ptolemy’s somewhat cumbersome epicyclical system, which 
had been in use for over a thousand years. To Paul III he writes: 

For some make use of homocentric circles only, others of 
eccentric circles and epicycles, by means of which however they 
do not fully attain what they seek. For although those who have 
put their trust in homocentric circles have shown that various 
different movement can be composed of such circles, 
nevertheless they have not been able to establish anything for 
certain that would fully correspond to the phenomena. But even 
if those who have thought up eccentric circles seem to have been 
able for the most part to compute the apparent movements 
numerically by those means, they have in the meanwhile 
admitted a great deal which seems to contradict the first 
principles of regularity of movement. 104 

Theologically speaking, Paul III wasn’t bothered by this assertion, 
since it appeared that Copernicus exhibited no insistence on making the 
heliocentric model more than an intriguing hypothesis. Unbeknownst to 
the pope, however, Copernicus’ solar system was in many instances more 
complicated than Ptolemy’s. What Copernicus claimed as simplicity is one 
thing; what his work shows is quite another. Even a cursory reading of De 
revolutionibus reveals that the model he proposed was complicated and 
uncertain. 10: ' As one author observes: 

ancestors of the modem title ‘Almagest’” (G. J. Toomer, Ptolemy’s Almagest, 
London, Duckworth, 1984, pp. 1-2). 

104 On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, p. 5. 

105 Some of the things with which Copernicus had to contend are: the obliquity of 
the ecliptic; the intersection of the equator, ecliptic and meridian; declinations and 
ascensions of stars; angles of the ecliptic with the horizon; precessions of solstices 
and equinoxes; irregularities of the equinoctial precession; the magnitude and 
difference of the solar year; the irregularity of the sun’s movement; the changes of 
the apsides; regular and apparent movement; the moon’s very complicated and 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

What we call the Copemican revolution was not made by Canon 
Koppemigk. His book was not intended to cause a revolution. He 
knew that much of it was unsound, contrary to evidence, and its 
basic assumption unprovable. 106 ....As a result of all this, Canon 
Koppemigk’s lifework seemed to be, for all useful purposes, 
wasted. From the seafarers’ and stargazers’ point of view, the 
Copemican planetary tables were only a slight improvement on 
the earlier Alphonsine tables, and were soon abandoned. And 
insofar as the theory of the universe is concerned, the 
Copemican system, bristling with inconsistencies, anomalies, 
and arbitrary constructions, was equally unsatisfactory, most of 
all to himself. In the lucid intervals between the long periods of 
torpor, the dying Canon must have been painfully aware that he 
had failed. 107 

Copernicus: More Epicycles tk an Ptolemy 

One of the more obvious faults of De revolutionibus was that for all 
its complaints against epicycles, in the end Copernicus actually produced 
more epicycles than Ptolemy. Ptolemy’s system has forty epicycles, 
whereas Copernicus ends up with forty-eight. Yet in the earlier work, the 
Commentariolus, Copernicus stated that his heliocentric system needed 
only thirty-four epicycles, and even this numeration was off by four. 108 

irregular movement; the unequal apparent diameter of the moon and its parallaxes; 
the mean oppositions and conjunctions of the sun and moon; ecliptic conjunctions; 
the irregular movements of the other planets; the latitudes of the planets; the 
planets’ angles of obliquation; and many other issues. 

106 The Sleepwalkers, p. 151. So reticent was Copernicus to publish his work for 
fear of ridicule that Rheticus, wishing to obscure the true author, published a 
summary of the contents and attributed the work to “the learned Dr. Nicolas of 
Torun,” the town Copernicus was born. 

107 Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p. 126. 

108 Copernicus writes in the Commentariolus'. “Then Mercury runs on seven 
circles in all; Venus on five; the earth on three, and round it the moon on four; 
finally Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn on five each. Altogether, therefore thirty-four 
circles suffice to explain the entire structure of the universe and the entire ballet of 
the planets,” translated by E. Rosen in Three Copemican Treatises, 1971, cited in 
Barbour’s Absolute or Relative Motion, p. 255. But Koestler remarks: 
“Incidentally, as Zinner has pointed out, even the famous count at the end of the 
Commentariolus is wrong as Copernicus forgot to account for the precession, the 
motions of the aphelia and the lunar nodes. Taking these into account, the 
Commentariolus uses thirty-eight not thirty-four circles,” adding that Copernicus 
makes no mention of the total number of epicycles in De revolutionibus'. “Apart 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

What happened, of course, was that since the Commentariolus was merely 
a preliminary thesis, Copernicus soon discovered that when the time came 
to work out the finer details of his system a couple of decades later, he was 
forced to add fourteen more epicycles just to make his version of celestial 
mechanics come close to the accuracy of Ptolemy’s. 109 Books IV and V are 

from the erroneous reference to 34 epicycles, I have nowhere seen a count made 
of the number of circles in De revolutionibus ” ( The Sleepwalkers, p. 580), perhaps 
hiding the fact from his reader that it contained more epicycles than the 
Commentariolus. Gingerich adds: “Copernicus must have realized that with his 
small epicyclets he actually had more circles than the Ptolemaic computational 
scheme used in the Alfonsine Tables or for the Stoeffler ephemerides” (op. cit., p. 

58) . Regarding the discrepancies among the orbits of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in 
1504, Gingerich writes: “...the evidence is firm that he had observed the cosmic 
dance at this time [1504] and was fully aware of the discrepancies in the tables. 
But what is most astonishing is that Copernicus never mentioned his observation, 
and his own tables made no improvement in tracking these conjunctions” {ibid., p. 

59) . 

109 The Sleepwalkers, pp. 194-195. One reason Copernicus had so many epicycles 
is, rather than placing the sun in the center of the universe, he placed the Earth’s 
entire orbit in the center (although, according to Gingerich: “this was an 
unresolved mystery in the book, for Copernicus hedged on the issue,” The Book 
that Nobody Read, p. 163). Koestler says discrepancies on the number of 
epicycles is because most historians have not read Copernicus’ book but depended 
on other biographers. Koestler’s notes show that he did a painstaking analysis of 
De revolutionibus that allows him to conclude Copernicus used forty-eight 
epicycles (pp. 579-580). Gingerich accounts for these extra epicycles as follows: 
“While he [Copernicus] had eliminated all of Ptolemy’s major epicycles, merging 
them all into the Earth’s orbit, he then introduced a series of little epicyclets to 
replace the equant, one per planet” (The Book that Nobody Read, pp. 54-55). For 
mistaken scholarly accounts that settled on Copernicus having only 34 epicycles, 
Koestler cites the Chamber’s Encyclopedia as stating the Copernican system 
reduced the epicycles “from eighty to thirty-four,” as is the case with Herbert 
Dingle’s address to the Royal Astronomical Society’ in 1943. I found the same 
discrepancies. Ivars Peterson writes: “Copernicus needed more circles in his sun- 
centered model than Ptolemy did in his Earth-centered scheme [a] total of 34 
circles for all the planets and the moon” (Newton’s Clock, p. 54). Some add more 
epicycles: “To account for the apparent alterations in speed and movement of the 
planets, Copernicus was obliged to use as many as ninety Ptolemaic epicycles” 
(James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, p. 134); “[Ptolemy] ultimately 
required 80 circles and nested epicycles” (Introduction to Modern Astronomy I, 
Peter A. Becker, George Mason Univ., lecture 4). Outlandish estimates include: 
“Although Copernicus introduced.. .about 40 epicycles to account for 
observations, he considered this a great improvement since the Ptolemaic theory 
contained more than 240 such epicycles” (Lloyd Motz and Anneta Duveen, 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

filled with pages of epicycle after epicycle. Here is just one sample of 


8ame plane: let the position of the planet be taken anywhere, at point 
D ; and from D let there be drawn DACBE the common diameter and DF and 
DO straight lines touching the orbital circle of the Earth at points F and 0. 
It is manifest that from point A only will the true position of the planet in 
DE the line of mean movement of the sun be apparent, when the planet is 
opposite the sun and is nearest to the Earth. For when the Earth is in the oppo¬ 
site position at B, the opposition [of the planet and the sun], although in the same 
straight line, will not be at all apparent on account of the closeness of the sun to 
C. But as the movement of the Earth is speedier, so that it outruns the movement 
of the planet, it will seemalong FBG thearc of apogee to add the total angle GDF 
to the movement of the planet and along the remaining arc GAF to subtract 
the same, according as arc GAF is smaller. But where the subtractive movement 
of the Earth excels the additive movement of the planet, especially in the 
neighbourhood of A, the planet will seem to be left behind by the Earth, to 
move westward and to come to a stop at the place where there is least difference 
between the movements which are contrary according to sight. 

And so it is once more manifest that all these apparent movements—which 
the ancients were looking into by means of the epicycles of the individual planets 
—occur on account of the movement of the Earth. But since in spite of the 
opinion of Apollonius and the ancients the movement of the planet is not found 
regular, as the irregular revolution of the Earth with respect to the planet pro¬ 
duces that; accordingly the planets are not carried in a homocentric circle but 
in some other which we shall demonstrate straightway. 

4. Why the Proper Movements op the Planets 
Appear Irregular 

the same mode except for 
Mercury, which is seen to 
differ from them, we shall 
treat of those four planets 
together, but another place 
has been given over to 
Mercury. Accordingly as 
the ancients placed one 
movement in two eccentric 
circles, as was shown, we 
have decreed two regular 
movements out of which 
the apparent irregularity 
is compounded either by a 
circle eccentric to an eccen¬ 
tric circle, or by the epicycle 
of an epicycle or by a com¬ 
bination of an eccentric cir¬ 
cle carrying an epicycle. For 
they can all effect the same 
irregularity, as we demon¬ 
strated above in the case of 
the sun and the moon. 

Page from Copernicus' De revolutionibus showing his epicycles 

Essentials of Astronomy, Wadsworth Publishing, CA, 1966, p. 135). Motz was an 
astronomer with a Ph.D. in physics from Columbia Univ. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

As one source describes Copernicus’ use of epicycles: 

His actual reason for this was because planetary observations 
indicated that even when the slowing down and speeding up of 
the observed planets due to retrograde motion was precisely 
accounted for, the planets still nevertheless did not seem to travel 
at uniform speed about the sun. Rather, the observations clearly 
demonstrated that they appeared to travel faster through space 
when closer to the sun and slower when further away from it. 
Indeed, this noted fact that the planets did not maintain a 
constant distance from the sun at all times in their orbits led 
Copernicus to offset his major orbital circles so that they were 
not precisely centered on the sun. Thus, in holding fast to his 
circles, and through his conviction that the speed of the planets 
was uniform, he was forced to retain small planetary epicyclical 
orbits as a subtle way to account for the continued presence of 
their apparent non-uniform motion about the sun....If one were to 
plot the actual path of one full orbit about the sun, the planet 
would be found to trace out an elongated circular path as 
opposed to an exact circle. Such is the result of combining two 
uniform circular orbits in the proscribed manner. 110 

Contrast Between Copernicus' 1510 Commentariohis 
and the 1543 De RevoUitionibus Regarding the Number of Epicycles 


Motion Problem 

De Revolutionibus 



Diurnal rotation 



Motions in longitude 



Conic motion of Earth's axis 
for its fixed direction 



Two rectilineal oscillations 
for precession and obliquity 




Motions in longitude 



Motion in latitude 



Three Outer 


Motions in longitude 3x3 



Oscillations in latitude 3x2 




Motions in longitude 



3 oscillatory' motions in 
latitude to 6 circular 




Motions in longitude 



Motions in latitude 






llo http://www. nomy.html. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Hence, Cohen remarks: 

.. .the claim for a great simplicity of the Copemican system, as 
opposed to a great complexity of the Ptolemaic system, must 
therefore - insofar as the number of circles is concerned - be 
taken cum grano salis, in fact, with the whole saltcellar.. .it takes 
only the most cursory leafing through the pages of De 
revolutionibus .. .to be struck by Copernicus’ use of epicycles 
page after page. Even a neophyte will recognize in the diagrams 
of De revolutionibus and the Almagest a kinship of geometrical 
methods and constructions that belies any simple claim that 
Copernicus’s book is in any obvious sense a more modem or a 
simpler work than Ptolemy’s.” 111 

Copernicus is reported by Rheticus to have said to him that if his 
planetary theory agreed with the observed positions of the 
planets (that is, to within ten minutes of arc), he would be as well 
pleased with himself as Pythagoras had been when he discovered 
the famous theorem associated with his name. In fact, however, 
Copernicus never attained this accuracy. To see how large or 
small this value is, it may be pointed out that the average naked- 
eye observer can just distinguish as two a pair of near-by stars 
four minutes of arc apart. According to Neugebauer, ten minutes 
was considered adequate agreement of observation....Before 
long, ten minutes of arc was considered to be so far off the mark 
that a difference of approximately this magnitude between a 
theory and the observed positions of Mars determined by Tycho 
Brahe could decide that a theory was worthless and should be 
cast aside. For Kepler it was unthinkable that there could be an 
error of even eight minutes of arc in Tycho’s planetary 
observations. The positions Tycho assigned to certain 
fundamental stars were generally less than one minute of arc 
from the true positions.” 112 

11 I. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science, pp. Ill, 119-120. Cohen adds: “But 
of course Copernicus was fully aware that no set of simple circular motions could 
give an accurate representation of the heavenly world.. ..Anyone conversant with 
astronomy would be aware that the diagram in book I of De revolutionibus was at 
best schematic, a greatly oversimplified model of the system” (p. 111). J. L. E. 
Dreyer says Copernicus’ system had “a serious defect” ( History ; of the Planetary’ 
Systems from Thales to Kepler, 1909, p. 342). 

112 Revolution in Science, p. 117. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

More disturbing is the fact that, to make Ptolemy’s model appear 
worse than it really was, Copernicus exaggerated the number of epicycles 
employed by his ancient rival. Although Ptolemy used only forty 
epicycles, Copernicus asserted that he had eighty. 113 This gives us a strong 
hint that perhaps Copernicus was not in this game merely to give the world 
a better model of cosmology; rather, he thought of it as an historic 
competition that allowed him to inflate his opponent’s errors. As Barbour 
notes: “In fact, there are far fewer circles in the Ptolemaic scheme 
presented in the Almagest than many accounts would lead one to believe; 
Ptolemy was remarkably economic in his use of circular motions.” 114 But 
most astronomers perpetuate an illusion about Copernicus. Cohen remarks 

A biography of Copernicus, subtitled “The Founder of Modem 
Astronomy,” would have us believe that “by making the Earth 
rotate on an axis and revolve in an orbit, Copernicus reduced by 
more than half the number of circular motions which Ptolemy 
had found it necessary to postulate.” 115 

As it stands, Ptolemy’s equant made his model much more 
economical. Copernicus had to add a second circular epicycle (or 
epicyclet) to do what Ptolemy’s equant had accomplished; and Copernicus 
was compelled to do so because he believed Ptolemy, by introducing the 
equant, had departed from strictly circular motion. As noted earlier, 
Ptolemy’s equant was so versatile that it would rival Kepler’s ellipse, for it 
allowed the planets to sweep out the same area per unit time of revolution 

113 Cohen remarks on Robert Palter’s coining of the “80-34 syndrome” of those 
who desired to place Copernicus above Ptolemy. Owen Gingerich adds that the 
myth of having to put up with Ptolemaic epicycles perpetuated itself like an out- 
of-control gossip chain. He writes: “The legend reached its apotheosis when the 
1969 Encyclopedia Britannica announced that, by the time of King Alfonso, each 
planet required 40 to 60 epicycles! The article concluded, ‘After surviving more 
than a millennium, the Ptolemaic system failed; its geometrical clockwork had 
become unbelievably cumbersome and without satisfactory improvements in its 
effectiveness.’ When I challenged them, the Britannica editors replied lamely that 
the author of the article was no longer living, and they hadn’t the faintest idea if or 
where any evidence for the epicycles on epicycles could be found” ( The Book that 
Nobody Read, pp. 56-57). Elsewhere Gingerich adds: “the Copernican system is 
slightly more complicated than the original Ptolemaic system” (“Crisis versus 
aesthetic in the Copernican revolution,” Vistas in Astonomy, 17, p. 87, 1975. 

114 Julian Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion , p. 184. 

115 1. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science, p. 119. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

that Kepler’s famous Second law of motion (the “equal area law”) would 
eventually accomplish a millennia and a half later. 

The complexity of Copernicus’ heliocentric system stems in part from 
the fact that most of the charts and figures in De revolutionibus were not 
original. Copernicus merely borrowed them from the Greeks and then 
reworked the figures to fit his heliocentric model: 

Canon Koppemigk was not particularly fond of star-gazing. He 
preferred to rely on the observations of Chaldeans, Greeks, and 
Arabs - a preference that led to some embarrassing results. The 
Book of the Revolutions contains, altogether, only twenty-seven 
observations made by the Canon himself; and these were spread 
over thirty-two years!...Even in the position he assumed for his 
basic star, the Spica, which he used as a landmark, was 
erroneous by about forty minutes’ arc, more than the width of the 



116 See CDROM for animation of Copernicus’ epicycles. 

117 Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p. 125. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

The great scholar on early astronomy, Otto Neugebauer, writes: 

The popular belief that Copernicus’ heliocentric system 
constitutes a significant simplification of the Ptolemaic system is 
obviously wrong. The choice of the reference system has no 
effect on the structure of the model, and the Copemican models 
themselves require about twice as many circles as the Ptolemaic 
models and are far less elegant and adaptable. 118 

Modern historians, making ample use of the advantage of 
hindsight, stress the revolutionary significance of the heliocentric 
system and the simplification it had introduced. In fact, the 
actual computation of planetary positions follows exactly the 
ancient patterns and the results are the same. The Copemican 
solar theory is definitely a step in the wrong direction for the 
actual computation as well as for the underlying kinematic 



Koestler adds: 

Alexandrian astronomers can hardly be accused of ignorance. 
They had more precise instruments for observing the universe 
than Copernicus had; Copernicus himself hardly bothered with 
star-gazing; he relied on the observations of Hipparchus and 
Ptolemy. He knew no more about the actual motions of the stars 
than they did. Hipparchus’ Catalogue of the fixed stars and 
Ptolemy’s Tables for calculating planetary motions were so 
reliable and precise that they served, with insignificant 
corrections, as navigational aids to Columbus and Vasco da 
Gama. Eratosthenes, another Alexandrian, computed the 
diameter of the Earth as 7,850 miles with an error of only % per 
cent. Hipparchus calculated the distance of the moon as 30% 
Earth diameters - with an error of only 0.3 per cent. Thus, 
insofar as factual knowledge is concerned, Copernicus was no 
better off, and in some respects worse off, than the Greek 
astronomers of Alexandria who lived at the time of Jesus 
Christ. 120 

118 Otto Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 1957, p. 204. 

119 Otto Neugebauer, “On the Planetary Theory of Copernicus,” Vistas in 
Astronomy 10, p. 103, 1968. 

120 Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p. 73. NB: Before the invention of the 
telescope, an accurate measurement of the distance between the sun and the Earth 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Along these lines, Thomas Kuhn reveals the modern misconception 

of Copernicus: 

But this apparent economy of the Copernican system, though it 
is a propaganda victory that the proponents of the new 
astronomy rarely failed to emphasize, is largely an 
illusion.. ..The seven-circle system presented in the First Book of 
the De revolutionibus, and in many modem elementary accounts 
of the Copernican system, is a wonderfully economical system, 
but it does not work. It will not predict the position of planets 
with an accuracy comparable to that supplied by Ptolemy’s 
system. 121 

To drive home the point, Kuhn adds: 

...this brief sketch of the complex system of 
...Copernicus...indicates the third great incongruity of the De 
revolutionibus and the immense irony of Copernicus’ lifework. 

The preface to the De revolutionibus opens with a forceful 
indictment of Ptolemaic astronomy for its inaccuracy, 
complexity, and inconsistency, yet before Copernicus’ text 
closes, it has convicted itself of exactly the same shortcomings. 
Copernicus’ system is neither simpler nor more accurate than 
Ptolemy’s. And the methods that Copernicus employed in 
constructing it seem just as little likely as the methods of 
Ptolemy to produce a single consistent solution of the problem of 
the planets. The De revolutionibus itself is not consistent with 
the single surviving early version of the system, described by 
Copernicus in the early manuscript Commentariolus. Even 
Copernicus could not derive from his hypothesis a single and 
unique combination of interlocking circles, and his successors 
did not do so....Judged on purely practical grounds, Copernicus’ 

was not possible. Ptolemy had estimated the distance to be 610 Earth diameters, 
while Copernicus estimated it to be 571 Earth diameters. The actual distance is 
11,500 Earth diameters. 

121 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary’ Astronomy in the 
Development of Western Thought, 1957, 1959, p. 169. N. R. Hanson adds: “ 
no ordinary sense of ‘simplicity’ is the Copernican theory simpler than the 
Ptolemaic” ( Constellations and Conjectures, Dordrecht, D. Reidel, 1973. Cited in 
Imre Lakatos’ The Methodology’ of Scientific Research Programmes, p. 175). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

new planetary system was a failure; it was neither more accurate 
nor significantly simpler than its Ptolemaic predecessors. 122 

Having heard of his fame, a fellow heliocentrist, Georg Joachim 
Rheticus, 122 visited with Copernicus in 1539. After befriending Copernicus 
and reading his works, Rheticus worked very hard in convincing him to 
publish his De revolutionibus. Prior to Copernicus’ decision, Rheticus 
wrote a summary version of Copernicus’ work titled Narratio prima in 
1540. 124 It was Rheticus’ purpose to do all that he could to disseminate the 
heliocentric universe. With the help of the Protestant publisher Johannes 
Petreius, 125 Rheticus acquired the services of Lutheran Andreas Osiander 
to write a preface for De revolutionibus. After years of labor, Rheticus was 
finally nearing success, but he did not get to see the final draft of De 
revolutionibus before it was published. In the meantime, Copernicus had 
suffered a stroke in December 1542, but his book was finally published in 
March 1543 by Petreius, and Copernicus had died shortly thereafter. 

In regard to his heliocentric theory, Copernicus consistently appealed 
to the “harmony” of his system, but it was a harmony ennobled by a sun 
that he personified, and, some say, deified. Copernicus writes: 

In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful 
temple could we place this luminary in any better position from 
which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called 

12 ~ Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copemican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the 
Development of Western Thought, p. 171. Herbert Butterfield adds: “[Copernicus] 
was puzzled by the variations he had observed in the brightness of the planet 
Mars...Copernicus’ own system was so far from answering to the phenomena in 
the case of Mars that Galileo in his main work on this subject praises him for 
clinging to his new theory though it contradicted observation....” (The Origins of 
Modern Science: 1300-1800, p. 37). 

122 Rheticus’ original name was Georg Joachim Iserin. His father, Georg Iserin, 
had been convicted of various crimes (either sorcery or theft, or both) and was 
executed. Families of the executed were required to change their last name. He 
chose “Rheticus” from the region of Rhaetia from where his mother originated. 

124 Rheticus writes in the Narratio: “...each of the planets, by its position and 
order and every inequality of its motion, bears witness that the earth moves and 
that we who dwell upon the globe of the earth, instead of accepting its changes of 
position, believe that the planets wander in all sorts of motions of their own” 
(translated by Edward Rosen, in Three Copemican Treatises, 1971, p. 165). 

125 Petreius published works on Luther, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Henry VIII, 
Regiomontanus and Gasser. Although he also published a few works by 
Augustine, Calvin and Luther had commandeered some of Augustine’s works on 
predestination for the cause of Protestantism. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes 
Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles’ Electra 
calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne 
ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth 
has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On 
Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. 
Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes 
pregnant with an annual rebirth. 126 

Karl Popper shows the origin of these cubic ideas: 

Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and 
Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun rather than the Earth in the 
center of the universe was not the result of new observations but 
of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light 
of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial 
idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, 
where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm 
of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of 
ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of 
Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things 
with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest 
in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature....Now if the sun 
was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine 
status...then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the 
Earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center 
of the universe. So the Earth was bound to revolve about the sun. 
This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the 

126 De revolutionibus, “10. Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies,” as cited in The 
Copernican Revolution, pp. 179-180 (Kuhn’s translation from the Latin). Charles 
Glenn Wallis’ translation (or his editor’s), although similar, seems desirous to 
lessen Copernicus’ deification of the sun by using slightly different wording and 
lower case letters: “In the center of all rests the sun. For who would place this 
lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this wherefrom it 
can illuminate eveiything at the same time? As a matter of fact, not unhappily do 
some call it the lantern; others, the mind, the pilot of the world. Trismegistus calls 
it a ‘visible god’; Sophocles’ Electra, ‘that which gazes upon all things.’ And so 
the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel 
around. Moreover, the Earth is by no means cheated of the services of the moon; 
but as Aristotle says in the De Animalibus, the Earth has the closest kinship with 
the moon. The Earth moreover is fertilized by the sun and conceives offspring 
every year” (On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, 1995, pp. 24-26). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but 
with a religious or mythological idea. 127 

Popper, being a supporter of the heliocentric revolution, couches his 
critique of Copernicus in rather polite terms, but essentially he is saying 
that Copernicus’ brainchild had all the earmarks of originating from pagan 
sun-worship. As Wolfgang Smith notes: the Renaissance movement championed by Marsiglio 
Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered 
form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a 
religion, a kind of neo-paganism. Copernicus himself was 
profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen 
from numerous passages in the De revolutionibus . 12s 

Upon reading De revolutionibus, one is struck by the preponderance 
of philosophical and humanistic arguments Copernicus brings to his aid. 
As J. D. Bernal notes: “[Copernicus’] reasons for his revolutionary change 
were essentially philosophic and aesthetic,” and in a later edition he is 
more convinced that the “reasons were mystical rather than scientific.” 129 
Overall, Copernicus presents about five-dozen arguments, at least half of 
which are solely philosophical in nature. Although the other half of his 
argumentation depends more on mechanics, these also have philosophical 
appendages to them. Very few of his arguments are based on his own 
personal observations, since, as we noted earlier, Copernicus merely 
reworked the observations of his Greek predecessors. In fact, Copernicus 
concludes that, because the Greeks did not detail their cosmological 

127 Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187. 
Popper is referring to Dominicus Maria da Novara, a mathematician and 
astronomer in Italy. Indulging in a bit of anachronistic evaluation. Popper goes on 
to defend him, suggesting that even though Copernicus’ idea came before the 
observation, he was nevertheless correct and “not a crank.” More of Popper’s a- 
posteriori thinking appears later in the book: “The Copernican system, for 
example, was inspired by a Neo-Platonic worship of the light of the Sun who had 
to occupy the ‘centre’ because of his nobility. This indicates how myths may 
develop testable components. They may, in the course of discussion, become 
fruitful and important for science” {ibid., p. 257). 

12S Wolfgang Smith, The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology’, p. 174. Copernicus was 
also influenced heavily by the liberal humanist, Codrus, who was known for 
denying various Church doctrines. 

129 J. D. Bernal, Science in History, 1 st edition, London, Watts, 1954; 2 nd edition, 
1965. Cited in Lakatos, Methodology’ of Scientific Research Programmes, p. 129. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

models more thoroughly, history (and God) have called upon him to 
provide the long-awaited documentation of true cosmology. 130 

But if one were to read De revolutionibus to discover a geometric sun 
that corresponded to Copernicus deified sun, he would be at a loss. For all 
Copernicus’ talk about the sun, it rarely appears in the diagrams of his 
book. It is replaced by “C” to designate the center. He said the sun was 
near the center, but he really didn’t know where to put it. Copernicus was 
mainly interested in moving the earth, but not necessarily moving it 
precisely around the sun. The Copernican Revolution, in essence, was a 
revolution to get the earth moving. The details of how to achieve that goal 
were certainly not accomplished with Copernicus or Galileo. 

Tke Real Trutli about Kepler’s Solar System 

After Copernicus there were, of course, refinements, such as Johannes 
Kepler’s elliptical orbits of the planets, which seemed to make things run a 
bit more smoothly for the heliocentric system. Kepler illustrated these 
ideas in his famous work Astronomia Nova in 1609. It was right around 
this time that Galileo began to profess publicly his belief in heliocentrism, 
although he failed to attribute much of anything to Kepler. 

Kepler, although a Lutheran, was influenced by the occult, as was his 
mother, Katherina Kepler, and the latter’s endeavor may have led to her 
trial as a witch. 131 Following his philosophy, Kepler’s main motivation for 

130 Thomas Heath sheds more light on this connection: “Copernicus himself 
admitted that the [heliocentric] theory was attributed to Aristarchus, though this 
does not seem to be generally known.. ..But it is a curious fact that Copernicus did 
mention the theory of Aristarchus in a passage which he afterwards suppressed: 
‘Credibile est hisce similibusque causis Philolaum mobilitatem terrae sensisse, 
quod etiam nonnulli Aristarchum Samium femnt in eadem fuisse sentential.”’ 
Heath also shows by quotes from Plutarch and Archemides that Aristarchus was 
the originator of the heliocentric view (Thomas Heath, Aristarchus of Samos: The 
Ancient Copernicus, 1913, p. 301 ff). J. L. E. Dreyer provides a more readable 
translation of Archimedes’ words: “You know that according to most astronomers 
the world (Kocgoq) is the sphere, of which the center is the center of the earth, and 
whose radius is a line from the center of the earth to the center of the sun. But 
Aristarchus of Samos has published in outline certain hypotheses, from which it 
follows that the world is many times larger than that. For he supposes 
(u7tOTi0£xai ) that the fixed stars and the sun are immovable, but that the earth is 
carried round the sun in a circle which is in the middle of the course...” (J. L. E. 
Dreyer, History’ of the Planetary’ Systems from Thales to Kepler, 1906, p. 136). 

131 Kepler’s Witch, James A. Connor, 2004, pp. 275-307. The Sleepwalkers, pp. 
389-393. The woman relative who raised Katherina was executed for practicing 
witchcraft (John Lear, Kepler’s Dream, 1965, p. 31). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

bringing the sun into the center of the planetary system, as had Copernicus 
before him, was that he considered it worthy of symbolic deification. 

Johannes Kepler: 1571 -1630 

In one passage he describes the sun as: “Who alone appears, by virtue 
of his dignity and power, suited... and worthy to become the home of God 
himself, not to say the first mover.” 132 

Similar to Copernicus, Kepler was also influenced by Greek thought, 
and in particular the Pythagorean concept of the harmony of the spheres. 
Using the idea of harmonic ratios, Kepler developed his third law of 
motion wherein the cube of a planet’s orbital period is proportional to the 
square of its distance from the sun. Kepler believed that even God was 
subject to these “harmonic” laws and had no other choice than to make the 
solar system by them. At one point Kepler attributes divinity to geometry, 
stating: “Geometry, coetemal with the divine mind before the origin of 
things, God himself (for what is there in God that is not God himself) has 
supplied God with the examples for the creation of the world.” 133 

132 On the Motion of Mars, Prague, 1609, Chapter 4, as cited in Thomas S. Kuhn, 
The Copernican Revolution, 1959, p. 214. Kuhn notes: “This symbolic 
identification of the sun and God is found repeatedly in Renaissance literature and 
art” (ibid., p. 130). Later adding: “This conviction [of Kepler’s], together with 
certain intrinsic incongruities discussed above, was his reason for rejecting the 
Tychonic system” (ibid., p. 214). Kepler’s reference to the “first mover” 
encapsulates his concept that as the sun rotated on its axis, its rays would act like a 
brash to move the planets. 

133 Johannes Kepler, De Harmonice Mundi, 1619. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 



S E V 


tradita commentariis 

M A R T I S, 

Ex oblcrviuonibus C - V. 

JufTu Sc fumptibuj 




Plurium annorum pemrud ftudio 
cbborata rragx , 

S m . C*. c S’. 


C’ *sx.“ fmutg* fcttudi 
A.<n j rrx DionyJuu cla la e tx. 

Astronomia Nova, 1609 

Kepi er versus Tycko 

Ironic as it may seem, astronomers realize that “the Keplerian system 
contradicts Copernicus on almost every fundamental principle....he 
jettisoned all but the two most general Copemican axioms: that the sun 
stands still and that the earth rotates and revolves.” 134 Whereas Copernicus 
had no specific value or place for the sun, Kepler’s distinction among all 
his predecessors was that he attributed a significant role to the sun in the 
motion of the planets. Aristotle believed that the planets were attached to 
spheres that were pushed by the gods. Copernicus, with the other 
medievals, believed that the Christian God moved only the outer sphere, 
which then moved the inner spheres holding the planets. The spheres had 
enough room between their inner and outer walls to accommodate the 
epicycles of either Ptolemy or Copernicus. 

134 Cohen, Revolution in Science, pp. 125-126. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo ana the Truth about Copernicanism 

Har moni CI s LIB. V. 20 7 

fliniaAnfinicainpocencia) permeantesa£tu : idquodaliteramenon 
pocuic exprimi, quam per continuant ieriem Notarum intermedia. 

nacurnus Jupicer Marsferd Terra 


T erra 



Mercurius Hie locum habctctiam; 


Kepler's "Harmonic Laws" of the Planets 

As noted earlier, in the course of his work Copernicus stumbled upon 
a geocentric system that did not use Ptolemaic epicycles, but he rejected 
that system because it did not incorporate the crystal spheres of the 
Greeks. But Copernicus’ trash became Tycho Brahe’s treasure. 

Brahe, through his discovery in 1577 of a comet, proved there were 
no crystal spheres in outer space, since a comet circling the sun would 
have crashed into the spheres. There was no more excuse to reject the 
geocentric alternative. Copernicus’ objection had now been answered and 
Tycho returned to the immobile earth with a revolving sun. Geometrically, 
all was sound. Everything that Copernicus’ system could do, Brahe’s could 
do, except the sun and the earth were switched. 

Tycho Brahe: 1546 - 1601 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

Tycho's Immobile Earth and Revolving Sun 

One thing missing from Brahe’s model, however, was the power grid. 
What was making the sun revolve around the earth, and the planets around 
the sun? How, in fact, cotdd the larger sun revolve around the smaller 
earth (which was one of the issues that bent Copernicus toward a sun- 
centered model)? 135 The Greeks believed the power came from their gods; 
the Christians believed it was God of the Bible, but no one had supplied a 
natural reason for the celestial movements (even if the natural cause was 
created by God). Brahe didn’t offer any solutions. He was merely a planet- 
charter who was devoted to the biblical geocentric system but didn’t kn ow 
quite how to use his forty-years worth of figures to prove his case. Of 
course, although Kepler offered a solution (the magnetic pull of the sun) it 

135 The objection raised by Hartman and Nissim against Brahe’s system is worded 
in a similar vein: “Brahe’s system violates conservation of momentum in that the 
solar system does not orbit around its center of mass and Mach gives no inkling 
on how to deal with the nonconservation of momentum in Brahe’s system” (“On 
Mach’s critique of Newton and Copernicus,” American Journal of Physics 71 (11) 
November 2003, p. 1167). We will thoroughly address this objection in Chapter 2. 
Suffice it to say for now that the “center of mass” in the geocentric system is no 
longer defined on a local, solar system, basis but on the basis of the whole 
universe in rotation around a fixed Earth at the universe’s center of mass. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

would later be discredited. 136 To this day, no one has found the power grid. 
Two centuries later, Newton would merely refine Kepler’s area law and 
show how gravity, not magnetism, was involved with the orbits of the 
planets, but he couldn’t explain the mechanism that produced gravity. He 
merely developed an equation to show its effects. 

Meanwhile, Kepler wrote his first book on astronomy in 1596 titled 
Mysterium Cosmographicum , which defended the Copernican system by 
asserting that the planets’ orbits were tied into the ratios of the Platonic 
solids. He found that each of the five Platonic solids could be encased in a 
sphere and thus produce six circular layers corresponding to the six orbits 
of the known planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. 
By a precise ordering of the solids: octahedron, icosahedron, 
dodecahedron, tetrahedron, and cube, Kepler showed that the spheres 
could be made to correspond to the orbits of the planets. 

Kepler sent his book to Brahe. Brahe was impressed and wrote a letter 
to Kepler’s professor with due praise, but added that he believed Kepler’s 
ingenuity would be better served by applying his mathematics to the 
geocentric system. Tycho also revealed his possession of planetary charts 
that would be useful for an intellect like Kepler’s. After a while, Tycho 
hired Kepler as an assistant and put him to work crunching astronomical 
numbers, but he did not give Kepler his planetary charts, probably because 
he didn’t know whether he could trust the young apprentice. Kepler 
worked for Brahe off and on for about a year, but he soon became restless. 
He desperately needed Brahe’s forty-years planet-charting to bring his 
Mysterium Cosmographicum theory to fruition. As Kepler describes it: 

For among the most powerful causes of visiting Tycho was this 
also, that I might learn the truer proportions of the deviations [of 
the planets] from him, by which I might examine both my 
Cosmic Mystery> and The Harmony of the World. For these a 
priori speculations ought not to impinge on clear experience: but 
with it be reconciled. 137 

136 After reading William Gilbert’s 1600 book De Magnete on magnetism, Kepler 
believed that each planet contained a magnet, and the sun contained a huge 
magnet. Depending on how the magnets were positioned, the result would either 
pull or push the planet around the sun. The farther the planet was from the sun, the 
weaker the magnetic field, and thus the slower the planet would move around the 
sun. The precise orientation of the polarities of the sun and the planets would then 
determine the ellipticity of the latter’s orbits. 

137 Heavenly Intrigue, p. 154. The Gilders’ add: “Kepler had not forgotten Brahe’s 
advice; he understood that, without the empirical backing only Brahe’s 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

Without these charts, Kepler would have been just another 
seventeenth-century astronomer struggling to make a living by reading 
astrological horoscopes, for he would have had little evidence upon which 
to base his theory regarding the motions of the planets. Modem telescopic 
observation reveals that, without ever using a telescope, Brahe’s star charts 
were consistently accurate to within 1 minute of arc or better. His 
observations of planetary positions were reliable to within 4 minutes of 
arc, which was more than twice the accuracy produced by the best 
observers of antiquity. In fact, it was Tycho’s express desire to use his 
precise measurements to uncover the errors in Copernicus’ solar system. 
This data was absolutely priceless, and Kepler, who revered Tycho and 
called him The Phoenix of Astronomy, would eventually pay, the evidence 
shows, the ultimate price to obtain them. Tycho knew of Kepler’s desire to 
possess the charts but Tycho did not want to see them pressed into service 
for Copernicus since he was the staunchest anti-Copernican of his day. 
Tycho’s very first letter to Kepler outlined his express desire that his forty- 
years of painstaking work be used to promote the geocentric system. In his 
book published in 1588, De mundi aetherei recentioribusphaenomenis, he 
stated his devotion to Scripture and to geocentrism: 

What need is there, without any justification, to imagine the 
earth, a dark dense and inert mass, to be a heavenly body 
undergoing even more numerous revolutions than the others, that 
is to say, subject to triple motion, in violation not only of all 
physical truth but also of the authority of Holy Scripture, which 
ought to be paramount. 138 

Tycho had more than a suspicion that Kepler saw things very 
differently. As the story develops, Kepler is now suspected of murdering 
Brahe in order to obtain the planetary charts. 139 In the words of one author: 

Kepler knew that in Tycho’s possession were the raw 
observations that he, as “architect,” longed to assemble into a 
coherent picture of planetary motion. And Tycho knew that the 
gifted Kepler had the mathematical wherewithal to prove the 
validity of the Tychonic [geocentric] system of the heavens. But 
Kepler was a confirmed Copemican; Tycho’s model had no 

incomparable observations could provide, his idea of universal structure and 
harmony would never amount to anything but an elegant theory” (ibid.). 

138 Brahe’s work is cited in Repcheck’s Copernicus’s Secret, p. 187. 

139 See Volume 3, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Chapter 11. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

appeal to him, and he had no intention of polishing this flawed 
edifice to the great man’s ego. 140 

All in all, Kepler’s geometrical modification didn’t prove Copernicus’ 
sun-centered system was right. It merely revealed Kepler’s preferences, 
since he knew that, if the same elliptical modifications were given to the 
reigning geocentric model of Tycho Brahe, they would have shown 
heliocentrism to be merely an alternative system, not a superior one. As 
one physics course put it: “However, one could also construct a 
‘Tychonean’ model with elliptical orbits.” 141 

Be that as it may, some historians hold that although Kepler claimed 
the discovery of elliptical orbits was supported by independent 
computations of planetary positions, in actuality, he employed the 
elliptical theory in order to derive his “observations.” 142 

140 Alan W. Hirshfeld, Parallax: The Race to Measure the Universe, 2001, pp. 92- 
93. Brahe was the principal author but perhaps not the only one who discovered 
what we now know as the Tychonic system. Helisaeus Roeslin worked on a 
similar system, but his work was never published. Nicholas Reimers Bar (also 
known as Ursus), published a Tychonic system with a rotating Earth in the 
Fundaments of Astronomy [actual title: Nicolai Raimari Ursi Dithmarsi 
Fundamentum astronomicum, Strasburg, 1588] but was known to have stolen it 
from Brahe, whereupon Brahe sought litigation against him, but Ursus died before 
the trial [see Heavenly Intrigue, pp. 120-185]. 

141 University of Illinois, Physics 319, Spring 2004, Lecture 03, p. 11. 

14 ~ Knowing this fact, historian Owen Gingerich says that Kepler’s ploy “may 
simply have been a legitimate flourish meant to persuade recalcitrant colleagues 
of the correctness of his insight” (As cited in the Bulletin of the Tychonian 
Society, No. 53, 1990, p. 32). Gingerich also suggests that elliptical orbits may not 
have been the brainchild of Kepler, but of Jerome Schreiber. He writes: “On folio 
143 [of Kepler’s copy of De revolutionibus] there appears the single Greek word 
eX,X,er\|nq - that is, ellipse - together with the same sort of emphasis marks that 
Schreiber used to highlight the passage on folio 96. When I first saw that book in 
Leipzig, I assumed that it was Kepler who had written ekkf i v|/aic in the margin, 
and I hadn’t made a color slide of it. Later, when I had discovered more 
information about the double layer of annotations and the evidence that it was 
likely Schreiber’s handiwork, I had to worry about which one wrote 
it.. ..Eventually I obtained excellent transparencies, which left no doubt that it was 
indeed Schreiber’s ink in the book Kepler had inherited” ( The Book that Nobody 
Read, p. 165). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

Eccentricity: The Shape of 
a Planet's Orbit 

Circle: Eccentricity =0 

O Ellipse: Eccentricity = 0.4 
O Ellipse: Eccentricity = 0.8 

Parabola: Eccentricity = 1.0 

Others are more endearing to Kepler and state that... 

after trying 70 different combinations of circles and epicycles, he 
finally devised a combination for Mars that would predict its 
position - when compared to Tycho’s observations - to within 
0.13°.. .however, the error of 0.13° still exceeded the likely error 
in Tycho’s measurements. Kepler knew enough about Tycho’s 
methods to know that an error of 0.13° in the data was too 
much....Finally, Kepler decided to abandon the idea of circular 
orbits... He tried various ovals.... After 9 years of work, he found 
a shape that fit satisfactorily with the observed path of Mars. 143 

Whatever the true state of affairs, in the end the discovery of ellipses 
helped both the heliocentric and geocentric models to conclude that 
planetary orbits were not perfect circles (although some are very close to 
perfect circles). 144 In fact, when Kepler discovered the elliptical orbit of 

143 Theo Koupelis, In Quest of the Universe, 6th edition, Jones & Bartlett 
Publishers, 2010, p. 57. 

144 Not only may Schreiber have pre-dated Kepler in regards to inventing elliptical 
orbits, it seems that neither Schreiber nor Kepler were the first to introduce the 
phenomenon. That honor apparently belongs to the Greeks. As Koestler notes: 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Mars, he found that its deviation from a circle was only one part in 450 
(the same deviation Ptolemy found for Mars and which was demonstrated 
by his equant). 145 Kepler could see this deviation because, unlike 
Copernicus, he had the sun pushing the planets in their orbits by a 
magnetic sweeping motion and thereby he sought to make the sun the 
actual center of the solar system to replace Copernicus’ ‘mean sun’ - the 
common point of intersection for all the orbits of the planets. Once the sun 
is placed in the center, it is just a matter of measuring how the planet 
advances toward and recedes from the sun. 

One historical note of interest is that on his deathbed Brahe asked 
Kepler to use his forty-years of planet-charting to support the geocentric 
system. Kepler fulfilled Brahe’s wishes but did so in his usual style - 
showing the three systems side-by-side (the Ptolemaic, Tychonic and 
Copernican). As Barbour notes: “Kepler immediately takes the opportunity 
to point out that, viewed in purely geometrical terms, the three forms are 
completely equivalent,” but Kepler believes he has “physical and 
dynamical” evidence of “the severe difficulties that the two rivals to 
Copernicus face.” 146 As noted earlier, the only differences are that Kepler, 
for his model only, employs precise elliptical orbits (and, in particular, he 
halves Tycho’s eccentricity of the sun-earth circumference); and uses the 
“area law” so that the consequent improvements of planetary motion and 
speed favor him alone. If Kepler had done the same to Tycho’s or even a 
modified Ptolemaic model, the equivalence would not only be “geometric” 
but also “physical and dynamical.” Unfortunately, Barbour never mentions 

“There exist some fragmentary remains, dating from the first century AD, of a 
small-sized Greek planetarium - a mechanical model designed to reproduce the 
motions of sun, moon, and perhaps also of the planets. But its wheels, or at least 
some of them, are not circular - they are egg-shaped [footnote: Ernst Zinner, 
Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Copernicanischen Lehre (Erlangen, 1943), p. 48]. 
Gingerich adds: “The equant got Ptolemy into a lot of trouble as far as many of his 
successors were concerned. It wasn’t that his model didn’t predict the angular 
positions satisfactorily. Rather, the equant forced the epicycle to move 
nonuniformly around the deferent circle, and that was somehow seen as a 
deviation from the pure principle of uniform circular motion. Ptolemy himself was 
apologetic about it, but he used it because it generated the motion that was 
observed in the heavens. Altogether his system was admirably simple considering 
the apparent complexity and variety of the retrograde loops” (The Book that 
Nobody Read, p. 53). 

145 Compare this to the bulge of the earth’s equator, which is one part in 231. 

146 Julian B. Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, pp. 273, 291. Kepler’s “area 
law” holds that as a planet travels in its elliptical orbit around the sun, it will cover 
the same area in the same time due to the fact that it speeds up when it is closer to 
the sun and slows down when it is farther away. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

this fact in his review. Instead, he quotes Kepler as saying: “Thus, the 
house that we erected on the basis of the Tychonic observations we have 
now demolished with other observations of the same man.” In actuality, 
Kepler didn’t demolish anything except his chance to be honest with the 
application of the scientific data. 

That Kepler was biased toward the Copemican universe is noted in 
his statement about the great advantages of having a moving earth: 

For it was not fitting that man, who was going to be the dweller 
in this world and its contemplator, should reside in one place of 
it as in a closed cubicle: in that way he would never have arrived 
at the measurement and contemplation of the so distant stars, 
unless he had been furnished with more than human 
was his office to move around in this very spacious edifice by 
means of the transportation of the earth his home and to get to 
know the different stations, according as they are measurers, i.e., 
to take a promenade so that he could all the more correctly view 
and measure the single parts of his house. 147 

Hence Kepler is driven to Copernicanism because he believes it is 
better for the Earth to take part in an adventurous excursion through the 
universe rather than being in a unique and immovable position from which 
to observe the universe, thus proving once again that modem cosmology is 
influenced by a significant percentage of philosophical bias. In actuality, a 
moving earth would not allow man to “more correctly view and measure 
the single parts of his house,” simply because without an immovable 
foundation on which to set his measuring stick, there is no accurate way to 
know the distances, positions, or motions of the house. It is the very reason 
that Barbour titled his book “Absolute or Relative Motion ?” for he, like 
Kepler, cannot tell what is moving and what is not. 

Of course, like Copernicus who had to form a crib for his moving 
Earth by placing it inside a fixed wall of stars in order for the latter to 
serve as his absolute frame of reference, Kepler did the same. He writes: 

The region of the fixed stars supplies the movables with a place 
and a base upon which the moveables are, as it were, supported; 

147 In Kepler’s Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae, 1618, 1620, as cited by 
Barbour, op. cit., p. 298. Barbour adds that Kepler’s bias toward Copernicanism is 
quite different “from the modern viewpoint according to which the main effect of 
the Copernican revolution was to demote man from the central position in the 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

and movement is understood as taking place relative to its 

absolute immobility. 148 

In saying this, however, Kepler knew, as did Copernicus before him 
citing Virgil, 149 that assuming the star field is fixed rather than rotating 
around the earth is completely arbitrary. The only thing Kepler knew for 
certain is that both the star field and the Earth couldn’t be rotating 
simultaneously. He had to choose one or the other, and his philosophy led 
him to a fixed star field. Part of that philosophy was evident in Kepler’s 
deification of the sun, the same philosophy that helped push Copernicus 
over the edge into heliocentrism when he stumbled upon a Tychonic style 
geocentric model. Kepler writes: “The Sun represents, symbolizes, and 
perhaps even embodies God the Father; the stellar vault, the Son; and the 
space in between, the Holy Ghost.” 150 

Regardless of Kepler’s motivations, Tycho Brahe’s system is its 
mirror image. Whatever improvements Kepler gave to his system were 
automatically true for Brahe’s, even if Kepler failed to apply them. In 
Brahe’s, the sun is in orbit around the Earth, while all the planets orbit the 
sun. In this way, all the distances, geometry and velocities of the 
heliocentric system are identical with the geocentric. Ptolemy’s deferent of 
Venus is now outside the sun, and thus all of Venus’ phases can be seen 
from Earth. 

Before we leave Tycho, we need to see one important discrepancy in 
his system that would eventually show that even his model was not 
adequate. Although it is true that if elliptical orbits are applied to Tycho’s 
planets his model would be just as accurate as Kepler’s, Tycho had always 
asserted that one of the main scientific reasons he had rejected 
heliocentrism was that it necessitated the existence of stellar parallax. That 
is, as the Earth revolves around the sun, at six month intervals it is on 
opposite sides of its orbit and thus we should be able to see closer stars 
shift in position when compared to stars that are more distant. Since no 
stellar parallax had ever been found, Tycho used this lacuna as proof of the 
geocentric system. But eventually the lack thereof could not serve as 
proof, especially since stellar parallax was confirmed about 250 years later 

148 In Kepler’s De Stella Nova in Pede Serpentarii, 1606, as cited in Barbour, op. 
cit., p. 336. 

149 “And why not admit that the appearance of daily revolution belongs to the 
heavens but the reality belongs to the Earth? And things are as when Aeneas said 
in Virgil: ‘We sail out of the harbor, and the land and the cities move away,” as 
stated in De Revolutionibus, Ch. 8, para. 4. 

50 In De Stella Nova in Pede Serpentarii, 1601, cited in Closed World to Infinite 
Universe, p. 58, fn. 2. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

by Bessel in 1838. So, if the geocentric system is true, it cannot be based 
on Tycho’s original model, unless, of course, it is modified to account for 
stellar parallax. We will cover this issue in Chapter 2. Suffice it to say for 
now, each of the foregoing systems had inherent flaws. Even today we do 
not have a perfect system to know the precise movements of the heavenly 
bodies. The only question we can address at this point is which model at 
least begins with the correct status for the Earth. Does the Earth move or is 
it fixed in space? As we move on, Chapter 2 will show that modern 
science has no proof for a moving Earth. Chapter 3 will show evidence 
that the Earth is in the center of the universe, while Chapter 4 will show 
evidence that the Earth does not move, either by rotation or revolution. 

Ptolemy, Copernicus an d Kepi er in Perspective 

Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the better-known celestial mechanics of our 
generation, gives an insight into the relationship of the various models: 

.. .the geocentric theory of Ptolemy had proved more successful 
than the heliocentric of Aristarchus. Until Copernicus, 
experience was just the other way around. Indeed, Copernicus 
had to struggle long and hard over many years before he equaled 
Ptolemy, and in the end the Copernican theory did not greatly 
surpass that of Ptolemy. 151 

Accordingly, no less a scientific luminary than Stephen Hawking 
admits the same: 

We now have a tendency to dismiss as primitive the earlier 
world picture of Aristotle and Ptolemy in which the Earth was at 
the center and the sun went around it. However we should not be 
too scornful of their model, which was anything but simple- 
minded. It incoiporated Aristotle’s deduction that the Earth is a 
round ball rather than a flat plate and it was reasonably accurate 
in its main function, that of predicting the apparent positions of 
the heavenly bodies in the sky for astrological purposes. In fact, 
it was about as accurate as the heretical suggestion put forward 
in 1543 by Copernicus that the Earth and the planets moved in 
circular orbits around the sun. 

151 Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, 1973, p. 5. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Galileo found Copernicus’ proposal convincing not because it 
better fit the observations of planetary positions but because of 
its simplicity and elegance, in contrast to the complicated 
epicycles of the Ptolemaic model. In Dialogues Concerning Two 
Sciences, Galileo’s characters, Salviati and Sagredo, put forward 
persuasive arguments in support of Copernicus. Yet, it was still 
possible for his third character, Simplicio, to defend Aristotle 
and Ptolemy and to maintain that in reality the Earth was at rest 
and the sun went round the Earth. 152 

Even though Hawking betrays the fact that he hasn’t thoroughly 
studied Copernicus’ De revolutionibus and is thus under the false 
impression that only Ptolemy, not Copernicus, had “complicated 
epicycles,” still, he reveals the distinct advantage a twentieth-century 
astronomer possesses over his sixteenth-century counterpart, that is, in the 
science of kinematics it is possible to make any point in space the center, 
and subsequently coordinate all of the other bodies around it. As Hoyle 
notes again: 

Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, 
from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether 
we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. 
Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely 
many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers 
- in principle any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter....So the 
passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus’ 
book, De revolutionibus orbium caelestium libri VI, were 
logically irrelevant... 153 

In other words, mathematically and relatively speaking, we can make 
any planet, or even the moon, the center of the solar system, and the 
geometric proportions will turn out precisely the same as having the sun at 
the center. 

152 On the Shoulders of Giants, ed., Stephen Hawking, 2002, pp. ix-x. 

153 Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, p. 1. Two 
years later he wrote: “We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory 
and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference 
has no physical significance. But such an understanding had to await Einstein’s 
theory of gravitation in order to be fully clarified” ( Astronomy and Cosmology’, 
1975, p. 416). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

Sir Fred Hoyle: 1915 - 2001 

He further adds: 

.. .we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for 
that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so 
for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary 
motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in 
dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to 
await the present century. 

Other notables recognize the same principle. Physicist Max Born 

154 Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, p. 82. Also 
from the same book: “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” 
and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense. The two theories 
are.. .physically equivalent to one another” {ibid, p. 88). Physicist J. L. McCauley 
who reviewed Hoyle’s book stated it was “The only brief account, using 
understandable modern terminology, of what Ptolemy and Copernicus really did. 
Epicycles are just data analysis (Fourier series), they don’t imply any underlying 
theory of mechanics. Copernicus did not prove that the Earth moves, he made the 
equivalent of a coordinate transformation and showed that an Earth-centered 
system and a sun-centered system describe the data with about the same number 
of epicycles. For the reader who wants to understand the history of ideas of 
motion, this is the only book aside from Barbour’s far more exhaustive treatment” 
(Letters on File, 10-1-04). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

Max Born: 1882 - 1970 

...Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a 
‘motionless Earth.’ This would mean that we use a system of 
reference rigidly fixed to the Earth in which all stars are 
performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity 
around the Earth’s has to show that the transformed 
metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field 
equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by 
Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick- 
walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as 
though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually 
attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, 
Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is 
chosen is a matter of expediency. 155 

155 Max Bom, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, 1962, 1965, pp. 344-345. In 
Volume 2, Chapter 9 will address this aspect of physics in more detail. Suffice it 
to say for now, Thirring’s model has been duplicated by Barbour & Bertotti (II 
Nuovo Cimento B , 38:1, 1977) and Joseph Rosen (“Extended Mach’s Principle,” 
American Journal of Physics, Vol 49, No. 3, March 1981) using Hamiltonians; 
and by William G. V. Rosser (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, 1964) 
who expanded on Thirring’s paper and and noted that the universe’s rotation can 
exceed c by many magnitudes; Christian Moller (The Theory of Relativity, 1952) 
who also extended Thirring’s paper using a ring universe rather than a shell; G. 
Burniston Brown (“A Theory of Action at a Distance,” Proceedings of the 
Physical Society, 1955) who discovered geocentrism based on Newtonian physics; 
Parry Moon and Domina Spencer (“Mach’s Principle,” Philosophy of Science, 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Martin Gardner, who authored one of the most popular and well- 
written books on Einstein’s theory of Relativity, states quite candidly: 

The ancient argument over whether the Earth rotates or the 
heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no 
more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of 
reference. Obviously, the most convenient choice is the 
universe.... Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from 
choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference.. .If we choose 
to make the Earth our fixed frame of reference, we do not even 
do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the 
morning, sets in the evening; the Big Dipper revolves around the 
North Star. Which point of view is “correct”? Do the heavens 
revolve or does the Earth rotate. The question is meaningless. 156 

In the late 1800s, author and scientist J. L. E. Dryer adds that the 
Earth-centered system developed in 1583 by Tycho Brahe “ in reality 
absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of 
the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.” 157 Physicist 
Hans Reichenbach, contemporary of and firm supporter of Einstein, 

.. .it is very important to acknowledge that the Copemican theory 
offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the 
planets.. .even though it must be conceded that, from the modem 
standpoint practically identical results could be obtained by 
means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system....It makes no 
sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between 
Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally 

1959) who arrive at geocentrism using Mach’s principle; J. David Nightingale 
(“Specific physical consequences of Mach’s principle,” 1976) who transposed the 
Einstein equation of Mach’s principle into Newtonian physics for a geocentric 
universe; and several others do the same. 

156 The Relativity Explosion, 1976, pp. 86-87. The previous edition was published 
in 1962 under the title: Relativity for the Million. 

157 J. L. E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, New York, 
Dover Publications reprint, 1953, p. 363. See also his 1890 work Tycho Brahe, 
(New York, Dover Publications reprint, 1963). Modem astronomy admits that the 
Tychonean planetary model is observationally indistinguishable from the 
Copernican model, yet in that model the Earth remains absolutely fixed while the 
universe revolves around the sun, and the sun, in turn, revolves around Earth. For 
a simulation, please employ the enclosed CDROM. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the 
greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of 
antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value. 158 

Lincoln Barnett, another Einstein disciple, is quite honest about 
science’s inability to prove Copernicanism and disprove geocentrism. He 
writes: “We can’t feel our motion through space; nor has any experiment 
ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” 159 Henri Poincare admits: 
“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of 
the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” 160 Carl E. 
Wulfman adds: “...I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the 
Church in Einstein’s day, he would have lost the argument for better 
reasons. You may use my name if you wish.” 161 Philosopher and scientist 
Bertrand Russell reveals: 

Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as 
Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east 
to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena 
will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian 
dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a 
metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or 
disproved by observation. 162 

Before Copernicus, people thought that the Earth stood still and 
that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught 
that ‘really’ the Earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation 

158 From Copernicus to Einstein, 1970, pp, 18, 82. 

159 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 1957, p. 73. Albert Einstein 
wrote the Foreword to Barnett’s book, yet while Barnett says in his book that 
there is no proof to Copernicanism, in Einstein’s famous 1905 paper it is stated: 
“...the same dynamic and optical laws are valid, as this for first-order magnitudes 
already has been proven,” showing that Einstein based Relativity on his belief that 
Copernicanism was, indeed, a “proven” fact (“Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter 
Korper,” Annalen der Physik, Vol. 17, 1905, pp. 891-892). In addition, Barnett’s 
book contains Einstein’s following endorsement: “Lincoln Barnett’s book 
represents a valuable contribution to popular scientific writing. The main ideas of 
the theory of relativity are extremely well presented: Princeton, New Jersey, 
September 10, 1948.” 

160 Stated in 1901 in La science et 1'hypothese, Paris, Flammarion, 1968, p. 182. 

161 Letter from Carl E. Wufman (University of the Pacific) to Mr. Roush, Nov. 2, 
1975, cited in “Galileo to Darwin,” P. Wilders, Christian Order, Apr. 1993, p. 225. 

162 Quoted from Dennis W. Sciama’s, The Unity of the Universe, 1961, pp. 102- 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

of sun and stars is only ‘apparent.’ Galileo and Newton endorsed 
this view, and many things were thought to prove it - for 
example, the flattening of the Earth at the poles, and the fact that 
bodies are heavier there than at the equator. But in the modem 
theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is 
merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no 
difference between the two statements: ‘the earth rotates once a 
day’ and ‘the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.’ The 
two mean exactly the same thing, just as it means the same thing 
if I say that a certain length is six feet or two yards. Astronomy 
is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the Earth, just 
as accounts are easier in decimal coinage. But to say more for 
Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. All 
motion is relative, and it is a mere convention to take one body 
as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not 
all are equally convenient. 163 

Philosopher of science E Bernard Cohen wrote in 1960: 

There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can 
prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus 
all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be 
accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just 
before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this 
Tychonic system, the planets...move in orbits around the sun, 
while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. 
Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated 
to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor 
revolves in an orbit. 164 

In the 1930s, physicist Arthur Lynch saw the same truth: 

Descartes is, however, doubly interesting to us in the discussion 
of Relativity, for at one time when the Inquisition was becoming 
uneasy about his scientific researches, he gave them a reply that 
satisfied them, or perhaps he merely gained time, which was 
long, while they were trying to understand its meaning. He 
declared that the sun went around the Earth, and that when he 

163 Bertrand Russell, The ABC of Relativity, London, revised edition, editor Felix 
Pirani, 1958, pp. 13-14. 

164 1. Bernard Cohen, Birth of a New Physics, revised and updated, 1985, p. 78. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

said that the Earth revolved round the sun that was merely 
another manner of expressing the same occurrence. I met with 
this saying first from Henri Poincare, and I thought then that it 
was a witty, epigrammatic way of compelling thought to the 
question; but on reflection I saw that it was a statement of actual 
fact. The movements of the two bodies are relative one to the 
other, and it is a matter of choice as to which we take as our 
place of observation. 165 

And once again from the celebrated astronomer, Fred Hoyle: 

Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going 
around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, 
and in making this proposal he thought he was offering 
something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting 
Tycho’s scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in 
principle there is no difference. 166 

We know now that the difference between a heliocentric and a 
geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such a 
difference has no physical significance,” [the Ptolemaic and 
Copernican views], “when improved by adding terms involving 
the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the 
planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another.” 167 

Even college physics textbooks make it known to their students that 
geocentrism has not been dethroned. The authors of these texts know the 
relevance of the question, since virtually every physics book published in 

165 Arthur Lynch, The Case Against Einstein, p. 22. 

166 Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on His Life and Work, p. 3. Hoyle 
continues: “So what was the issue? The issue was to obtain even one substantially 
correct empirical description of the planetary motions. The issue was to find out 
how the planets moved....With knowledgeable hindsight, the situation may not 
seem unduly complicated, but looked at without foreknowledge the problem of 
how is anything but simple” (emphasis his). In the same book, Hoyle adds a time- 
lapsed photograph of the motions of the planets as seen from Earth. The photo 
shows looping motions, zig-zagging motions, abrupt reversal motions, in short, a 
dizzying array of complexity. 

167 The first quote taken from Fred Hoyle’s Astronomy and Cosmology’, 1975, p. 
416; the second, from Hoyle’s Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on His Life and 
Work, p. 88. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

the last two centuries begins its lessons by making reference to the debate 
between the Ptolemaic and Copemican systems. One text puts it this way: 

Does the Earth really go around the Sun? Or is it also valid to 
say that the Sun goes around the Earth? Discuss in view of the 
first principle of relativity (that there is no best reference 
frame). 168 

Obviously, in light of the principle of Relativity to which the student 
was introduced earlier, the above questions are merely rhetorical. The 
textbook is actually preparing the student for the fact that modem science 
will no longer allow anyone to lay claim to the Copemican principle, and 
the text further implies that it has no way of determining which model is 
correct, the heliocentric or the geocentric. The author, Douglas C. 
Giancoli, attempts to reinforce the relativity principle with a discussion of 
the famous 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, which, he states: “...was 
intended to measure the motion of the Earth relative to an absolute 
reference frame. Its failure to do so implies the absence of any such 
preferred frame.” 169 Of course, the alternative he fails to offer his reader, in 
line with his rhetorical question above (“Or is it also valid to say that the 
Sun goes around the Earth?”), is that a perfectly valid “implication” of the 
Michelson-Morley experiment is that no “motion of the Earth” exists and, 
consequently, the Earth itself is the “preferred frame.” 

Interestingly enough, in the first and second editions of the same 
physics textbook, Giancoli freely admitted the geocentric “implications” of 
the Michelson-Morley experiment: 

But this implies the earth is somehow a preferred object; only 
with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as 
predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is tantamount to 
assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe, an 
ancient idea that had been rejected centuries earlier. 170 

168 Physics: Principles with Applications, 4 th ed., Douglas Giancoli, 1995, p. 767. 

169 Physics: Principles with Applications, 5 th ed., Douglas Giancoli, 1998, p. 800. 

170 Douglas C. Giancoli, Physics: Principles with Applications, 1985, pp. 613-614 
and 1980, p. 625. From pages 610-614 (1985 edition) and 621-625 (1980 edition), 
the text reads: “However, it appeared that Maxwell’s equations did not satisfy the 
relativity principle. They were not the same in all inertial frames. They were 
simplest in the frame where c = 3.00 x 10 8 m/s; that is, in a reference frame at rest 
in the ether. In any other reference frame, extra terms would have to be added to 
take into account the relative velocity. Thus, although most of the laws of physics 
obeyed the relativity principle, the laws of electricity and magnetism apparently 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

did not. Instead, they seemed to single out one reference frame that was better 
than any other - a reference frame that could be considered absolutely at rest. 
Scientists soon set out to determine the speed of the Earth relative to this absolute 
frame, whatever it might be. A number of clever experiments were designed. The 
most direct were performed by A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley in the 
1880s.,..[p. 613] ...Michelson and Morley should have noted a movement in the 
interference pattern of (7.0 x 10“ I6 s)/( 1.8 x 10" 15 s) = 0.4 fringe. They could have 
easily detected this, since their apparatus was capable of observing a fringe shift 
as small as 0.01 fringe. But they found no significant fringe shift whatever! They 
set their apparatus at various orientations. They made observations day and night, 
so that they would be at various orientations with respect to the sun. They tried at 
different seasons of the year (the Earth at different locations due to its orbit around 
the Sun). Never did they observe a significant fringe shift. This “null” result was 
one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One 
possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But 
this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the 
earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is 
tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe .” The 
fourth and fifth editions read as follows: “However, it appeared that Maxwell’s 
equations did not satisfy the relativity principle. They were not the same in all 
inertial frames. They were simplest in the frame where c = 3.00 x 10 8 m/s; that is, 
in a reference frame at rest in the ether. In any other reference frame, extra terms 
would have to be added to take into account the relative velocity. Thus, although 
most of the laws of physics obeyed the relativity principle, the laws of electricity 
and magnetism apparently did not. Instead, they seemed to single out one 
reference frame that was better than any other - a reference frame that could be 
considered absolutely at rest. Scientists soon set out to determine the speed of the 
Earth relative to this absolute frame, whatever it might be. A number of clever 
experiments were designed. The most direct were performed by A. A. Michelson 
and E. W. Morley in the 1880s.. .Michelson and Morley should have noted a 
movement in the interference pattern of (7.0 x 10" 16 s)/( 1.8 x 10" 15 s) = 0.4 fringe. 
They could have easily detected this, since their apparatus was capable of 
observing a fringe shift as small as 0.01 fringe. But they found no significant 
fringe shift whatever! They set their apparatus at various orientations. They made 
observations day and night, so that they would be at various orientations with 
respect to the sun. They tried at different seasons of the year (the Earth at different 
locations due to its orbit around the Sun). Never did they observe a significant 
fringe shift. This “null” result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of 
the nineteenth century. To explain it was a difficult challenge. One possibility to 
explain the null result was to apply an idea put forth independently by G. F. 
Fitzgerald and H. A. Lorentz (in the 1890s) in which they proposed that any 
length (including the arm of an interferometer) contracts by a factor of V(l-v 2 /c 2 ) 
in the direction of motion through the ether” (Douglas C. Giancoli, Physics: 
Principles with Applications, fourth edition, pp. 746, 749, and fifth edition, pp. 
796, 799). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

Unfortunately, we don’t see these admissions in later editions of the 
same book. Perhaps in later editions the publisher was reticent to advertise 
the geocentric alternative to the Michelson-Morley experiment and thus 
felt the need to excise it from future editions; or worse, in order to obscure 
the true state of affairs regarding the once sacrosanct world of Copernicus, 
they made a deliberate decision to conceal their previous analysis from the 

We see the biases of current scientific investigation against 
geocentrism and toward the “Copemican Principle” in almost every hall of 
modem academia. For example, popular today are “The Great Courses” 
produced by The Teaching Company. In one episode taught by Professor 
Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College, the Michelson-Morley 
experiment is being discussed. Fie states: 

What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There 
was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift 
in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; 
nothing. What’s the implication? FI ere was an experiment that 
was done to measure the speed of the earth’s motion through the 
ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive 
than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two 
miles a second instead of the known 20mps that the earth as in 
its orbital motion around the sun. It didn’t detect it. What’s the 
conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The 
implication is that the earth is not moving relative to the ether; 
no shift; null results.” 

When we hear words from noted 
scientists such as, “There was never, never, 
in any orientation at any time of year, any 
shift in the interference pattern; none; no 
shift; no fringe shift; nothing,” it seems 
convincing to the average layman. As a 
scientist, however, Wolfson should know 
better. The same is true of more famous 
scientists, such as Stephen Hawking. He 
writes in his most current book: 1887 Michelson and Edward Morley carried out a very 
sensitive experiment designed to measure the speed at which the 
earth travels through the ether.. .If the speed of light were a fixed 
number relative to the ether, the measurements should have 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

revealed light speeds that differed depending on the direction of 
the beam. But Michelson and Morley observed no such 
difference. 171 

Suffice it to say, like every other modem scientist who bases his 
interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment on his cosmological 
presuppositions, Hawking believes they “observed no such difference” 
because he presumes the Earth is moving. Fortunately, other scientists are 
more precise in telling what actually occurred. For example, John D. 
Norton who teaches philosophy and science at the University of 
Pittsburgh, puts it this way: 

Michelson and Morley found shifts in the interference fringes, 
but they were very much smaller than the size of the effect 
expected from the known orbital motion of the Earth. 172 

As Norton states, the experiment did not result in “no fringe shifts” 
but fringe shifts “much smaller than the size” of those equal to an Earth 
revolving around the sun. As we will see later, the “shifts in the 
interference fringes” were commensurate with a 1,054 miles per hour 
speed in a 24-hour rotation (of either the Earth rotating within a fixed 
universe or a rotating universe around a fixed Earth) but were nothing near 
what was required of an Earth revolving around the sun at 66,000 miles 
per hour. As Martin Selbrede notes: 

Certainly, we expect to see that rotation, 
because if space is rotating diumally 
every 24 hours around the Earth, then 
that so-called scouring effect, the drag, 
is going to be very real and we are going 
to measure it. But we are not going to 
see that motion around the sun. 

Consequently, the experimental data 
actually conforms to the geocentric 
model. 173 

171 The Grand Design, p. 95. 

172 “The Origins of Special Relativity,” 
0410/chapters/origins/index.html, p. 14. 

173 Interview of Martin Selbrede for the scientific documentary, The Principle, 
produced by Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC, Los Angeles, California, 2013. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Wolfson attempts to dissuade his audience from any non-Copemican 
interpretation of Michelson-Morley by little more than a philosophical 

If [earth] it isn’t moving relative to the ether, then earth alone 
among the cosmos is at rest relative to the ether. Now that may 
be an absurd possibility but maybe it’s true. 1 thi nk you can see 
that this is not going to be very philosophically satisfying, and it 
isn’t satisfying physically either, but it violates the Copemican 
Principle that the earth isn’t special. It is particularly absurd in 
light of what we know from modem cosmology namely that 
there are places in the universe, distant galaxies in particular, that 
are moving away from us at speeds very close to the speed of 
light. It’s absurd to imagine that everything in the universe is 
pinned to earth when there are such a wide range of speeds 
relative to earth throughout the universe, but it suffices to rule it 
out on this philosophical ground. 174 

As Giancoli did, Wolfson admits that a perfectly viable solution to the 
Michelson-Morley experiment is that the Earth is motionless, but he 
immediately dissuades his audience from that option by appealing to the 
“Copemican Principle that the earth isn’t special,” adding that “it suffices 
to rule it out on this philosophical ground.” This clearly shows that the 
Copemican Principle from which modem science creates its interpretations 
of the cosmological data is not scientific but philosophical. In other words, 
even if the empirical evidence shows Earth is not moving, the ever-present 
Copemican Principle requires that every piece of scientific data must be 
interpreted by assuming the earth is moving and thus cannot hold a special 
place in either the physical or the intellectual world of mankind. 

In his book, Simply Einstein, Wolfson presents the same kind of 
“philosophical” argument, almost as if he wants to make the reader feel 
guilty for even thinking about a non-Copemican universe: 

Consider first the possibility that Earth isn’t moving relative to 
the ether. I can think of two ways for this to be the case. First, 
the ether might be a fixed substance that extends throughout the 
Universe. Then Earth alone among all the cosmos would be at 
rest relative to the ether. I say “alone” because all other celestial 
objects—the Moon, Mars, Venus, the other planets, the Sun, 

174 “Einstein’s Relativity and the Quantum Revolution,” Richard Wolfson, The 
Teaching Company, 2000, Lecture 5: “Speed c Relative to What?” 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

other stars in our galaxy, and the other galaxies in the 
Universe—all are moving relative to Earth. So if Earth is at rest 
relative to the ether, then is alone is at rest. That makes us pretty 
special....Do you really want to return to parochial, pre- 
Copemican ideas? Do you really think you and your planet are 
so special that, in all the rich vastness of the Universe, you alone 
can claim to be “at rest.” 175 

Additionally, Wolfson’s claim that his conclusion is supported by the 
proposition that “galaxies...are moving away from us at speeds very close 
to the speed of light” is, as we will see in later chapters, a classic case of 
petitio principii, since it is an interpretation of red shift data that must first 
assume the Copemican Principle is true in order to conclude that the 
galaxies are receding at light speed. In actuality, it is an unproven 
hypothesis of modem cosmology which, in actuality, admits it is missing 
96% of the matter and energy it needs to allow the galaxies to expand in 
accordance with Big Bang theory predictions. As Martin Selbrede notes: 

Those who hold to the Copemican Principle believe there is no 
center, or every place is a center, but if there is a single center it 
is any place but here, and they propose this as a scientific 
position. But where is the science behind that? It’s not. It’s a 
metaphysical commitment. It’s not science anymore. So it’s not 
the geocentrist that is being unscientific here, it is the other side 
that being unscientific, because their commitment precedes the 
science. At least our position follows the science. They are trying 
to derive the science by a metaphysical commitment. 176 

175 Richard Wolfson, Simply Einstein: Relativity’ Demystified, New York, W. W. 
Norton Co. 2003, pp. 63-64. 

176 Interview of Martin Selbrede for the scientific documentary. The Principle, 
produced by Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC, Los Angeles, California, 2013. 
Selbrede continues: “We’ve actually proposed taking a Raleigh interferometer 
onto the space shuttle....Three geocentric scientists proposed this and published it 
in one of the journals....A Raleigh interferometer...sends light through both a 
vacuum and a water tube and combines the light together and this allows us to 
maximize the effect of a Michelson-Morley style experiment....The reason that 
these experiments are not done is the assumption that we already know the 
result.. ..This is perhaps, again, a matter of being fearful of the result.. .They don’t 
want to do it. They assert, ‘Well, a ring laser does the same thing.’ No it doesn’t. 
It’s a completely different measurement entirely.. .Of course, Einstein dies on the 
vine the second that you get a non-zero result... and all of physics collapses with 
the experiment.” 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

The majority of today’s Protestant conservatives who advocate an ex 
nihilo six-day creation but are reluctant to entertain the possibility of a 
geocentric universe, admit, nevertheless, that the whole matter is one of 
perspective, such that heliocentrism is merely a preferred model, but 
certainly not the proven one. Popular author Jonathan Sarfati writes: 

Both sides should have realized that all movement must be 
described in relation to something else - a reference frame - and 
from a descriptive point of view, all reference frames are equally 
valid...Using the sun (or center of mass of the solar system) is 
the most convenient for discussing planetary motions. 177 

This very question had troubled the Greeks and Romans over two 
thousand years ago. Seneca, for example, writes a description very similar 
to what Bom, Hoyle, or Hawking write today, only back then he didn’t 
have anyone to provide him a scientific answer: 

It will be proper to discuss this, in order that we may know 
whether the universe revolves and the Earth stands still, or the 
universe stands still and the Earth rotates. For there have been 
those who asserted that.. .risings and settings do not occur by 
virtue of the motion of the heaven, but that we ourselves rise and 
set. The subject is worthy of consideration.. .whether the abode 
allotted to us is the most slowly or the most quickly moving, 
whether God moves everything around us or ourselves instead. 178 

Almost two thousand years later, however, modem science hasn’t 
provided Seneca with a good answer. From Bom, Hoyle, and Hawking we 
see that the only response science can give to Seneca is that science 
doesn’t know the answer. In fact, as we will see in this intriguing saga, 
science has come full circle. It wasn’t until the dawn of Relativity (which, 
as we will see later, was the very physics invented in hopes of saving 
mankind from having to revert back to geocentrism), that science realized 
it could never prove heliocentrism, and thus, in every experiment devised 
since then to show otherwise, science became like Sisyphus pushing the 
rock up the mountain hoping to reach the summit, only to find that the 
weight of the evidence could not be overcome, and thus it would be forced 
to watch the heliocentric rock roll down time after time. 

177 Jonathan Safarti, “The Sun: Our Special Star,” subtitle: “Sunspots, Galileo and 
Heliocentrism,” Answers in Genesis, Vol. 22, Issue 1, p. 5. 

178 Seneca, Nat. Quaest. vii. 2, 3. Cited in Aristarchus of Samos: The Ancient 
Copernicus, Sir Thomas Heath, 1913, p. 308. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

Although many more scientists could be cited, the above quotes give 
a sufficient across-the-board sampling of the consensus. The irony about 
the above citations is that they all come from the pens of those who have 
been classed as heliocentrists. Obviously, then, we can conclude that each 
scientist will, if he is honest, admit that his advocacy for heliocentrism is 
merely a preference, and more often a bias, but certainly not the proven 

Why No System is Completely Accurate 

Even after Kepler’s modifications, anomalies regarding the motions 
of the heavenly bodies remained, and stubbornly so. Although 
geometrically speaking the orbits are not perfect circles, they are not 
perfect ellipses either, but precess at different rates and contain various 
eccentricities. Quoting Hoyle again: 

The planetary orbits are not strictly ellipses, as we have so far 
taken them to be, because one planet disturbs the order of 
another through the gravitational force that it exerts....In all 
cases the orbits are nearly circles.. ..It is curious that although the 
actual orbits do not differ in shape much from circles the errors 
of a circular model can nevertheless be quite large. Indeed, errors 
as large as this were quite unacceptable to Greek astronomers of 
the stature of Hipparchus and Ptolemy. It was this, rather than 
prejudice, which caused them to reject the simple heliocentric 
theory of Aristarchus.. ..The Hipparchus theory grapples with the 
facts whereas the circular picture of Aristarchus fails to do 
so....The theory of Ptolemy, a few minor imperfections apart, 
worked correctly to the first order in explaining the planetary 
eccentricities. Copernicus with his heliocentric theory had to do 
at least as well as this, which meant that he had to produce 
something much better than the simple heliocentric picture of 
Aristarchus.... Kepler achieved improvements, but not complete 
success, and always at the expense of increasing complexity. 
Kepler and his successors might well have gone on in this style 
for generations without arriving at a satisfactory final solution, 
for a reason we now understand clearly. There is no simple 
mathematical expression for the way in which the direction of a 
planet - its heliocentric longitude - changes with time. Even 
today we must express the longitude as an infinite series of terms 
when we use time as the free variable. What Ptolemy, 
Copernicus, and Kepler, in his early long calculations, were 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

trying to do was to discover by trial and error the terms of this 
series. Since the terms become more complicated as one goes to 
higher orders in the eccentricity, the task became successively 
harder and harder... 179 

Professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University, Charles 
Lane Poor, says much the same: 

From the time of Newton, it has been known that Kepler’s laws 
are mere approximations, computer’s fictions, handy 
mathematical devices for finding the approximate place of a 
planet in the heavens. They apply with greater accuracy to some 
planets than to others. Jupiter and Saturn show the greatest 
deviations from strictly elliptical motion. The latter body is often 
nearly a degree away from the place it would have been had its 
motion about the sun been strictly in accord with Kepler’s laws. 

This is such a large discrepancy that it can be detected by the 
unaided eye. The moon is approximately half a degree in 
diameter, so that the discrepancy in the motion of Saturn is about 
twice the apparent diameter of the moon. In a single year, during 
the course of one revolution about the sun, the Earth may depart 
from the theoretical ellipse by an amount sufficient to 
appreciably change the apparent place of the sun in the 
heavens. 180 

Expanding on Hoyle and Poor’s argument, it is clear from the 
historical record that heliocentric cosmology has been built upon the myth 
of “simplicity,” or what is often referred to in science disciplines as 

179 Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, pp. 73, 8, 9, 
53, 11-12, 13-14, in the order of ellipses. 

180 Charles Lane Poor, Gravitation versus Relativity, p. 129. Owen Gingerich 
adds: “Naturally astronomy textbooks don’t show it this way, because they can’t 
make the point about ellipses unless they enormously exaggerate the eccentricity 
of the ellipse. So for centuries, beginning with Kepler himself, a false impression 
has been created about the elliptical shape of planetary orbits. The eccentricity of 
planetary orbits (that is, their off-centeredness) is quite noticeable - even Ptolemy 
had to cope with that - but the ellipticity (the degree the figure bows in at the 
sides) is very subtle indeed. Observations of Mars must be accurate to a few 
minutes of arc for this tiny ellipticity to reveal itself’ ( The Book that Nobody 
Read,p. 166). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

“Occam’s razor,” that is, ‘the simplest solution is the best solution.’ 181 It 
was the same logic employed in Galileo’s time to promote the heliocentric 
system, with such cliches as: “ natura simplicitatem amat ” (nature loves 
simplicity); “ natura semper quod potest per faciliora, non agit pet- 
ambages diffidles' (nature always decides to go through the easy path; it 
does not seek difficult paths). In 1674, the famous scientist Robert Hooke 
(contemporary of Newton), in his hook An Attempt to Prove the Motion of 
the Earth from Observation, admitted he could not show the Earth was 
moving in space. He gave two rationalizations for his failure. In the first he 
claimed it was more or less a psychological problem: 

Whether the Earth move or stand still hath been a Problem, that 
since Copernicus revived it, hath much exercised the Wits of our 
best modem Astronomers and Philosophers, amongst which 
notwithstanding there hath not been any one who hath found out 
a certain manifestation either of the one or the other Doctrine... 
[Some] have been instructed in the Ptolemaik or Tichonick 
System, and by the Authority of their Tutors, over-awed into a 
belief, if not a veneration thereof: Whence for the most part such 
persons will not indure to hear Arguments against it, and if they 
do, ‘tis only to find Answers to confute them. 182 

In the second he tries to settle the issue by an appeal to Occam’s 
razor, but in the end, Hooke himself sees the fallacy of such an approach: 

On the other side, some out of a contradicting nature to their 
Tutors; others, by as great a prejudice of institution; and some 
few others upon better reasoned grounds, from the proportion 
and harmony of the World, cannot but embrace the Copemican 

[But] what way of demonstration have we that the frame and 
constitution of the World is so harmonious according to our 
notion of its harmony, as we suppose? Is there not a possibility 
that things may be otherwise? Nay, is there not something of a 
probability? May not the Sun move as Ticho supposes, and that 
the Planets make their Revolutions about it whilst the Earth 

181 From the writings of William of Occam (1300-1349) who stated: “Essentia non 
sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.” 

182 Robert Hooke, An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations, 
1674, pp. 1, 3, as cited in Owen Gingerich’s St. Edmunds lecture, “Empirical 
Proof and/or Persuasion,” March 13, 2003. Also in Hirshfeld’s, Parallax, p. 144. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

stands still, and by its magnetism attracts the Sun and so keeps 
him moving about it? 183 

The pretentious appeal to Occam has never subsided. When, because 
of his presupposition toward Relativity, physicist and mathematician Henri 
Poincare was faced with the question of whether the Earth rotated within 
fixed stars or the stars rotated around a fixed Earth, his only recourse was 
to assert that the former should be accepted because it enables us to devise 
a simpler mathematical theory of astronomy. 184 But the reality is, not only 
is the dependence on simplicity an unproven assumption, the heliocentric 
system is not any simpler than the geocentric system. As Imre Lakatos 

The superior simplicity of the Copemican theory was just as 
much of a myth as its superior accuracy. The myth of superior 
simplicity was dispelled by the careful and professional work of 
modem historians. They reminded us that while Copemican 
theory solves certain problems in a simpler way than does the 
Ptolemaic one, the price of the simplification is unexpected 
complications in the solution of other problems. The Copemican 
system is certainly simpler since it dispenses with equants and 
some eccentrics; but each equant and eccentric removed has to 
be replaced by new epicycles and epicyclets...he also has to put 
the center of the universe not at the Sun, as he originally 
intended, but at an empty point fairly near to it... .1 think it is fair 
to say that the ‘simplicity balance’ between Ptolemy’s and 
Copernicus’ system is roughly even. 185 

183 Robert Hooke, An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations, 
pp. 1, 3, as cited in Gingerich. 

184 As summarized by Morris Kline in Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, 1982, 
p. 344. Kline himself goes on to argue: “And in fact simplicity of the 
mathematical theory was the only argument Copernicus and Kepler could advance 
in favor of their heliocentric theory as opposed to the older Ptolemaic theory.” 

185 Imre Lakatos, The Methodology’ of Scientific Research Programmes: 
Philosophical Papers, edited by J. Worrall and G. Currie, Vol. 1, 1978, 1999, pp. 
173-174. He adds: “Koestler correctly points out that only Galileo created the 
myth that the Copemican theory was simple [The Sleepwalkers, p. 476]; in fact, 
[quoting J. L. E. Dreyer, 1906, chapter xiii] ‘the motion of the Earth had not done 
much to simplify the old theories, for though the objectionable equants had 
disappeared, the system was still bristling with auxiliary circles’” {ibid., p. 33); 
“The Copemican revolution was generally taken to be the paradigm of 
conventionalist historiography, and it is still so regarded in many quarters. For 
instance Polanyi tells us that Copernicus’s ‘simpler picture’ had ‘striking beauty’ 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

In fact, considering how mathematically complex the motions of the 
celestial bodies really are ( e.g ., the complex motions of the sun and moon 
cited earlier; Newton’s “three-body” problem and the “perturbations” of 
the planets, all requiring the use of complex differential and integral 
calculus to chart their motions), no cosmological system should base its 
appeal on the simplicity of its system, for in the case of celestial motion, 
modem science has actually found that if the solution is too simple it is 
probably wrong, for it means that it isn’t taking everything into account. 186 

Even more revealing is the fact that, as modem science prides itself 
on having dispensed with Ptolemy’s epicycles, conceptually speaking they 
are still very much in use, although they are labeled with different names 
in order to conceal their identity. Charles Lane Poor revealed this secret 
back in the 1920s: 

The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s 
orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations” .... In calculating 
the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old 
device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It 
is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one 
may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the 
slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the 
popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. 

The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic 
motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into 
a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but 
the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the 

and ‘justly carried great powers of conviction’ [M. Polanyi, The Logic of Liberty, 
1951, p. 70]. But modern study of primary sources, particularly by Kuhn [The 
Copernican Revolution, 1957], has dispelled this myth and presented a clear-cut 
historiographical refutation of the conventionalist account. It is now agreed that 
the Copernican system was ‘at least as complex as the Ptolemaic’ [I. Bernard 
Cohen, The Birth of a New Physics, p. 61]. But if this is so, then, if the acceptance 
of Copernican theory was rational, it was not for its superlative objective 
simplicity” (Lakatos, Methodology, p. 129). 

186 Philosopher of science Mario Bunge has shown how presumptuous and naive it 
is to assume that the scientifically correct solution always turns out to be the least 
complex (The Myth of Simplicity, 1963). Regarding the three-body problem, 
Lagrange offered a partial solution by assuming one of the three bodies had 
negligible mass. If a small mass is placed at a Lagrangian Point, it will remain 
stationary in the rotating system. In 1912, K. F. Sundman attempted a solution 
based on a converging infinite series, but it converges much too slowly to be of 
any practical use. As it stands, no method has been developed to solve the 
equations of motion for a system with four or more bodies. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the Truth about Copernicanism 

fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be 
concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the 
combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions. 187 

In essence, Poor tells us that the introduction of the Fourier series, 
invented by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (d. 18 3 0), 188 takes the veil off the 
Copemican system and re-establishes geocentrism to its rightful place. The 
Fourier series plainly shows that any cosmological system can be 
demonstrated within reasonable accuracy simply by introducing the proper 
number of cyclical modulations (or “circular arguments,” if you will, 
including, as we will see, the “curved space” of General Relativity). In 
other words, one can create any mathematical system and then “curve-fit” 
any deviations or discrepancies back into the system. In the end, Fourier 
inadvertently exposed the shaky foundations of modem cosmology by 
showing that there is simply no possibility of being certain about the 
coordinates of any rotating system, since the math and geometry can be 
manipulated to fit the observations. In fact, based on Fourier analysis one 
could design a universe that is constructed from the foundation of a flat 
Earth (as we see in a two-dimensional map) and make it mathematically 
indistinguishable from one based on a spherical Earth. Math works 
wonders, but it doesn’t provide us with the knowledge of how the actual 
physical system works. As Poor notes: 

No more did Hipparchus believe that the bodies of the solar 
system were actually attached to the radial arms of his epicycles; 
his was a mere mathematical, or graphical device for 
representing irregular, complicated motions. While the graphical, 
or mechanical method is limited to a few terms, the 
trigonometrical, or analytical method is unlimited. It is possible 
to pile epicycle upon epicycle, the number being limited only by 
the patience of the mathematician and computer. The 

187 Charles Lane Poor, Gravitation versus Relativity, p. 132. See also Robert W. 
Brehme, “A New Look at the Ptolemaic System,” American Journal of Physics, 
44:506-514, 1976. Brehme examines in detail the Ptolemaic system of planetary 
motions in order to demonstrate its direct kinematical connection with a 
heliocentric system. Ptolemy’s planetary parameters are shown to be in good 
agreement, upon transformation, with modem values. See also Bina Chatterjee, 
“Geometrical Interpretation of the Motion of the Sun, Moon and the Five Planets 
as Found in the Mathematical Syntaxis of Ptolemy and in the Hindu Astronomical 
Works,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 15:41-88, 1947. 

188 Joseph B. J. Fourier, Theorie analytique de la chaleur [The Analytic Theory of 
Heat], 1822. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

expressions for the disturbing action of one planet upon another, 
due to the attraction of gravitation, involve an unlimited number 
of such terms; or, as the mathematician puts it, the series is 
infinite. 189 

Koestler adds: 

The Copernican system is not a discovery.. .but a last attempt to 
patch up an out-dated machinery by reversing the arrangement of 
its wheels. As a modem historian put it, the fact that the Earth 
moves is “almost an incidental matter in the system of 
Copernicus which, viewed geometrically, is just the old 
Ptolemaic pattern of the skies, with one or two wheels 
interchanged and one or two of them taken out.” 190 

What Was the Attraction to Copernicanism? 

All this evidence provokes the question as to how the Copernican 
system gained such popularity. How is it that a treatise riddled with 
geometrical and mathematical presumptions, in addition to being one of 
the less-popular and least-studied books of its day, became the world’s 
most sacrosanct “fact” of existence? Koestler offers at least one plausible 
answer, one very similar to that with which we opened this chapter: 

The answer is that the details did not matter, and that it was not 
necessary to read the book to grasp its essence. Ideas which have 
the power to alter the habits of human thought do not act on the 
conscious mind alone; they seep through to those deeper strata 

189 Charles Lane Poor, Gravitation versus Relativity, p. 139. In practical terms, 
Fourier analysis, or harmonic motion, allows one to use as many circles of motion 
as needed in order to create the path that coincides most accurately with the actual 
path of the planet. Astronomer George Abell adds another insight: “Quite likely, 
however, the spheres of Eudoxus and Callippus were intended as a mere 
mathematical representation of the motions of the planets. It was a scheme that 
‘saved the phenomena’ better than ones before it, and in this respect it was 
successful. The epicycles of Ptolemy, developed later, may similarly be regarded 
as mathematical representations not intended to describe reality. Modern science 
does no more. The laws of nature ‘discovered’ by science are merely 
mathematical or mechanical models that describe how nature behaves, not why, 
nor what nature ‘actually’ is” ( Exploration of the Universe, 1969, p. 16). 

190 The Sleepwalkers, pp. 214-215. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

which are indifferent to logical contradictions. They influence 
not some specific concept, but the total outlook of the mind. The 
heliocentric idea of the universe, crystallized into a system by 
Copernicus, and restated in modem form by Kepler, altered the 
climate of thought not by what it expressly stated, but by what it 
implied...” 191 

191 The Sleepwalkers, p. 218. Kepler was the first astronomer to publicly endorse 
Copernicus. Koestler adds: “The Mysterium.. .the first chapter, which is an 
enthusiastic and lucid profession of faith in Copernicus. It was the first 
unequivocal, public commitment by a professional astronomer which appeared in 
print fifty years after Canon Koppernigk’s death....Galileo...and astronomers like 
Maestlin, were still either silent on Copernicus, or agreed with him only in 
cautious privacy” (ibid., p. 255). Yet he found out quickly the muddle of 
Copernicus’ figures. Kepler writes: “How human Copernicus himself was in 
adopting figures which within certain limits accorded with his wishes and served 
his purpose....He selects observations from Ptolemy, Walter, and others with a 
view to making his computations easier, and he does not scruple to neglect or to 
alter occasional hours in observed time and quarter degrees of angle” (Mysterium 
Cosmographicum, Gesammelte Werke, vol. I, note 8). Owen Gingerich takes a 
different view, claiming that De revolutionibus was more popular than Koestler 
admits. Having found a marked copy of the technical parts of Copernicus’ book 
among the effects of Erasmus Reinhold, Gingerich was prompted to do a 
worldwide search for evidence of who, precisely, possessed an original edition of 
De revolutionibus, leading him to conclude: “I found copies owned by saints, 
heretics, and scalawags, by musicians, movie stars, medicine men, and 
bibliomaniacs. But most interesting are the exemplars once owned and annotated 
by astronomers.” Gingerich’s findings amount to “six hundred printed copies of 
Copernicus’ magnum opus,” which coincides with the fact that the first edition 
was only a thousand copies (The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of 
Nicolaus Copernicus, Owen Gingerich, pp. ix-x). Gingerich adds: “Clearly, when 
Arthur Koestler wrote that De revolutionibus was ‘the book that nobody read’ and 
‘an all time worst seller,’ he couldn’t have been more mistaken. He was wrong. 
Dead wrong” (ibid., p. 255). Gingerich, however, has the tendency throughout his 
book to insulate Copernicus and his work from negative criticism. Moreover, 
Koestler’s thesis is not based on the number of people who possessed copies of 
Copernicus’ book, but on the number who actually read it completely and did a 
thorough study of its contents. In that sense, Gingerich does not prove his point 
against Koestler. For the record. Reinhold’s publications on astronomy include a 
1553 commentary on Georg Purbach’s Theoricae novae planetarum. He was 
aware of Copernicus’ heliocentric system prior to the 1543 appearance of De 
revolutionibis and cited him in his commentary. But Reinhold rejected 
heliocentrism on physical and theological grounds. Hanne Andersen, et al., The 
Cognitive Structure of Scientific Revolutions, New York, Cambridge University 
Press, 2006, pp. 138-148. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Feyerabend is even more candid: 

It is clear that allegiance to the new ideas will have to be brought 
about by means other than arguments. It will have to be brought 
about by irrational means such as propaganda, emotion, ad hoc, 
hypotheses, and appeal to prejudices of all kinds. We need these 
‘irrational means’ in order to uphold what is nothing but a blind 
faith until we have found the auxiliary sciences, the facts, the 
arguments that turn the faith into sound ‘knowledge.’ It is in this 
context that the rise of a new secular class with a new outlook 
and considerable contempt for the science of the schools, its 
methods, its results, even for its language, becomes so important. 

The barbaric Latin spoken by the scholars, the intellectual 
squalor of academic science, its other-worldliness which is soon 
interpreted as uselessness, its connection with the Church - all 
these elements are now lumped together with the Aristotelian 
cosmology and the contempt one feels for them is transferred to 
every single Aristotelian argument. This guilt-by-association 
does not make the arguments less rational, or less conclusive, 
but it reduces their influence on the minds of those who are 
willing to follow Copernicus. For Copernicus now stands for 
progress in other areas as well, he is a symbol for the ideals of a 
new class that looks back to the classical times of Plato and 
Cicero and forward to a free and pluralistic society. The 
association of astronomical ideas and historical and class 
tendencies does not produce new arguments either. But it 
engenders a firm commitment to the heliocentric view - and this 
is all that is needed at this stage, as we have seen. We have also 
seen how masterfully Galileo exploits the situation and how he 
amplifies it by tricks, jokes and non-sequiturs of his own. 192 

Of course, we would be remiss if we did not add the fact that 

Copernicus, as the old saying goes, came at the right time in the right 

place. As Carl Rufus puts it: 

Not only was Copernicus well prepared for his work, but the 
time was opportune. Revolutionary changes were in vogue. 
Gutenberg’s invention had provided movable type and printing 
presses were busily engaged spreading new ideas. Columbus 
discovered a new world and the ships of Magellan 

192 Paul Feyerabend, Against Method, pp. 114-115. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

circumnavigated the globe. Savonarola preached his prophetic 
warnings and Martin Luther nailed his theses to the Wittenberg 
cathedral door. Aristotle’s authority in science was beginning to 
be questioned. The old everywhere was being challenged and the 
new was being tried. 193 

As we opened this chapter with Gould’s bold proclamation that 
modem science has founded itself upon a non-centered, infinite universe, 
so the same rationale had been employed in previous eras. As Solomon 
said, “There is nothing new under the sun” - a statement which we can 
now take both literally and figuratively. The theological, philosophical, 
social, and intellectual fabric of history has been divided right down the 
middle by those who have taken one side or the other in the on-going 
debate as to what revolves around what; a debate that stretches as far back 
as written records take us. 

In the second millennium, the drama played itself out much faster 
since the invention of the printing press made it possible to publish one’s 
views far and wide. Moreover, the arguments on either side became more 
technical and refined. On this stage the next combatants were the 
Scholastic astronomers who brought their intellectual muscle against 
Nicolaus of Cusa and Nicolaus Copernicus. Then, of course, there was 
Johannes Kepler versus Tycho Brahe, and then Galileo Galilei versus 
Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, and Isaac Newton versus the Jesuits and 
Dominicans, 194 and James Bradley versus George Airy’s “failure.” After 

193 W. Carl Rufus, “The Astronomical System of Copernicus,” Popular 
Astronomy, 1923, p. 516. 

194 Dorothy Stimson lists the advocates and dissidents of the Copernican theory as 
catalogued by Giovani Riccioli, SJ, who held that there were “40 new arguments 
in behalf of Copernicus and 77 against him.” The list is as follows: Those 
advocating heliocentrism were: Copernicus, Rheticus, Maestlin, Kepler, Rothman, 
Galileo, Gilbert, Foscarini, Didacus Stunica, Ismael Bullialdus, Jacob Lansberg, 
Peter Herigonus, Gassendi (“but submits his intellect captive to the Church 
decrees”), Descartes (“inclines to this belief’), A. L. Politianus, Bruno. Those 
disavowing heliocentrism were: Aristotle, Ptolemy, Theon the Alexandrine, 
Regiomontanus, Alfraganus, Macrobius, Cleomedes, Petrus Aliacensis, George 
Buchanan, Maurolycus, Clavius, Barocius, Michael Neander, Telesius, 
Martinengus, Justus-Lipsius, Scheiner, Tycho, Tasso, Scipio Claramontius, 
Michael Incofer, Fromundus, Jacob Ascarisius, Julius Caesar La Galla, Tanner, 
Bartholomasus Amicus, Antonio Rocce, Marinus Mersennius, Polacco, Kircher, 
Spinella, Pineda, Lorinis, Mastrius, Bellutris, Poncius, Delphinus, Elephantutius 
(The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory’ of the Universe, p. 81-82). 
Jean Buridan (1300-58) had once entertained the possibility of a heliocentric 
system based on its reciprocity with the geocentric, but opted to reject it in favor 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

this, geocentrism had a new challenger, the Relativity of Albert Einstein, 
which, faced with experiments by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley 
that demonstrated the distinct possibility of a motionless Earth, sought to 
win the battle of the cosmos by decentralizing the whole universe, since 
the very idea of having to return to geocentrism was “unthinkable.” 195 

As we saw earlier, Einstein himself concluded: “The struggle, so 
violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and 
Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either.. .could be used with 
equal justification.” 196 A fair question to ask in light of Einstein’s 
remarkable admission of the viability of geocentric cosmology is: how 
many people have been enlightened to this knowledge? The answer is: 
hardly anyone. They have been duly shrouded from the implications of 
Relativity theory by a campaign engineered like no other in history. The 
evidence, as we have seen, is just dripping from the textbooks, but very 
few have been forthright enough to advertise it. 

Willem de Sitter: 1872 - 1934 

Ernst Mach: 1838-1916 

of Aristotle. Others not on Riccioli’s list who advocated geocentrism are: Francis 
Bacon, Thomas Feyens, Libert Froidmont, Gerogius Agricola, Johann Flenrich 
Voight, Andre Tacquet, S.J., Giovanni Cassini. 

195 “Unthinkable” is the word employed by Einstein’s biographer Ronald W. Clark 
to describe Einstein’s reaction to the famous 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, 
which, to the consternation of its scientists, offered as one solution to its puzzling 
results that the Earth was not moving in space {Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 
110). As W. G. V. Rosser put it, “...this would give the earth an omnipotent 
position in the universe which people had been loathe to accept since the time of 
Copernicus” (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, p. 58). 

196 The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, 
Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Einstein’s contemporary and a world-renowned physicist in his own 
right, Willem de Sitter, admitted much the same: “The difference between 
the system of Ptolemy and that of Copernicus is a purely formal one, a 
difference of interpretation only.” 197 Ernst Mach, who more or less was the 
pioneer in taking Newtonian relativity to its logical conclusion, stated it 
quite plainly: 

Obviously it matters little if we think of the Earth as turning 
about on its axis, or if we view it at rest while the fixed stars 
revolve around it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case 
of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect 
to one another. 198 

All masses, all velocities, thus all forces are relative. There is no 
basis for us to decide between relative and absolute motion....If 
there are still modem authors who, through the Newtonian water 
bucket arguments, allow themselves to be misled into 
differentiating between relative and absolute motion, they fail to 
take into account that the world system has been given to us only 
once, but the Ptolemaic and Copemican views are only our 
interpretations, but both equally true. 199 

197 Willem de Sitter, Kosmos, 1932, p. 17. 

198 Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung Historich-Kritisch 

Dargestellt, Liepzig: Brokhaus, 1883. English title: The Science of Mechanics: A 
Critical and Historical Account of its Development, translated by T. J. 
Macormack, La Salle, Open Court Publishing, I960, 6 th edition, p. 201. The 
seventh edition of Mach’s book was published in 1912. Although in this treatise 
Mach does not himself adopt geocentrism, he repeatedly challenges modem 
science with the fact that geocentrism is not only a viable alternative, but that it 
substantially answers the famous 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. 

199 Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung Historich-Kritisch 

Dargestellt, Liepzig: Brokhaus, 1883, p. 222. The original German reads: “Alle 
Massen, alle Geschwindigkeiten, demnach alle Krafte sind relativ. Es gibt keine 
Entscheidung iiber Relatives und Absolutes, welche wir treffen konnten, zu 
welcher wir gedrangt waren....Wenn noch immer moderne Autoren durch die 
Newtonschen, vom Wassergefafi hergenommenen Argumente sich verleiten 
lassen, zwischen relativer und absoluter Bewegung zu unterscheiden, so bedenken 
sie nicht, dafi das Weltsystem uns nur einmal gegeben, die ptolemaische oder 
kopernikanische Auffassung aber unsere Interpretationen, aber beide gleich 
wirklich sind” (Translated by Mario Derksen). NB: Although Mach forbids 
Copemican science from making any distinctions, he cannot forbid the same to 
geocentric science, for it is upon divine revelation that the distinction is made, that 
is, the Earth is motionless and is our absolute rest frame. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Gerald Holton and Stephen Brush, two well-known physicists, agree 
with the consensus: 

To us it is clear, although it did not enter the argument then, that 
the scientific content of both theories [Ptolemy’s and 
Copernicus’], the power of prediction of planetary motion, was 
about the same at that time....In our modem terminology we 
would say...that the rival systems differed mainly in the choice 
of the coordinate system used to describe the observed 
movements. 200 

Holton admitted the same in another book with two other physicists, 
showing how practical a geocentric system really is: 

Copernicus and those who followed him felt that the heliocentric 
system was right in some absolute sense - that the sun was really 
fixed in space....But the modem attitude is that the choice of a 
frame of reference depends mainly on which frame will allow 
the simplest discussion of the problem being studied. We should 
not speak of a reference system being right or wrong, but rather 
as being convenient or inconvenient. (To this day, navigators use 
a geocentric model for their calculations.) 201 

In addition to contemplating the numerous quotes we have cited from 
qualified scientists who have concluded that there is no superiority of the 
heliocentric system over the geocentric system, the layman can afford 
himself the opportunity to come to the same conclusion by means of a 
simple mechanical device. If the opportunity affords itself, make a visit to 
the nearest planetarium. Inside, one will find what astronomers know as an 
orrery. An orrery, named after the fourth Earl of Orrery, Charles Boyle (d. 
1731), is a moving mechanical model of the sun and planets. Since almost 
all orreries are heliocentric models, the sun will be placed in the center and 
all the planets will be revolving around the sun in their proportionate sizes 
and speeds. Holding the sun stationary in hand, one can watch all the other 
planets revolve around it. But with a repositioning of one’s hand, the same 
orrery will demonstrate the geocentric system. Instead of holding the sun, 
hold the Earth. One will now see the sun and the planets revolve around 

200 Gerald Holton and Stephen G. Brush, Introduction to Concepts and Theories in 
Physical Science, 1973, p. 28. 

201 James F. Rutherford, Gerald Holton and Fletcher G. Watson, The Project 
Physics Course, 1970, Unit, p. 40. Apollonius was the first to show that 
eccentricity and epicycles could be manipulated to show exactly the same motion. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

the Earth, and they will do so in precisely the same relation to one another 
as when the sun was held in the center. If one cannot locate an orrery, 
simply draw a heliocentric model of the sun and planets on a piece of 
paper and place the point of the pencil in the middle of the sun and then 
rotate the paper. This will simulate the planets revolving around the sun 
(as we imagine them in their own paces). But now, put the pencil in the 
middle of the Earth and rotate the paper. One will discover that the only 
difference between the two models is that the sun will assume the orbit the 
Earth had. 202 As one astronomer remarked: “The equivalence of these two 
pictures was already known to Apollonius, who lived in the third century, 
B.C., long before Ptolemy (ca. A.D. 150).” 203 Or, as Thomas Kuhn has noted 
about the above demonstration: 

Now imagine that.. .the whole mechanism is picked up.. .and put 
down again with the sun fixed at the central position formerly 
held by the Earth....All of the geometric spatial relations of the 
Earth, sun and Mars...are preserved...and since only the fixed 
point of the mechanism has been changed, all the relative 
motions must be identical.. .the Tychonic system is transformed 
to the Copemican system simply by holding the sun fixed instead 
of the Earth. The relative motion of the planets are the same in 
both systems, and the harmonies are therefore preserved. 204 

Ironically, the very theory that was invented to escape geocentrism, 
Relativity, is now the one that gives it carte blanche privileges. Honest 
scientists admit these facts. Once again, Fred Hoyle, one of the more 
outspoken and candid astronomers of the twentieth century, is unafraid to 
cross the scientific picket line and admit the errors and shortcomings of his 
own field of endeavor. He writes: 

We might hope therefore that the Einstein theory, which is well 
suited to such problems, would throw more light on the matter. 

But instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture 
of the planetary motions, the Einstein theory goes in the opposite 
direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric 
picture. The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere 
coordinate transformation, and it is the main tenet of the Einstein 

202 One can also consult Henry C. King’s Geared to the Stars: The Evolution of 
Planetariums, Orreries and Astronomical Clocks, 1978, pp. 442. King shows both 
geocentric and heliocentric orreries in use beginning from 1650. 

203 Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, 1973, p. 63. 

204 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copemican Revolution, 1959, pp. 204-205. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are 
related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely 
equivalent from a physical point of view. 205 

Science writer Kitty Ferguson goes one step farther: 

Fred Hoyle has argued that a subtler understanding of Einstein’s 
theories reveals they may actually slightly favor an Earth- 
centered model. Had Galileo had Hoyle at his elbow, he might 
have produced the book that would have pleased the pope and 
not have been tried for heresy!” 206 

Being completely honest with her reader, she adds: 

Why, then, does Ptolemy come off so badly in this contest? 
Paradoxically, the enormous success of Ptolemaic astronomy is 
not an argument in its favor. It can account for all apparent 
movement in the heavens. It could also account for a great deal 
that never happens. It allows for too much. Copemican 
astronomy, as it has evolved, allows for far less. It’s easier to 
think of something that Copemican theory could not explain. 

The more scientific way of putting this is that Copemican theory 
is more easily “falsifiable” than Ptolemy’s, easier to disprove. 
Falsifiability is considered a strength...if new discoveries don’t 
undermine it but fall neatly into place.... 

There is another criterion by which theories are judged, and, for 
better or worse, it shows that modem scientists do have a certain 
kinship with those recalcitrant seventeenth-century scholars they 
so disdain. When new theories and the implications of new 
discoveries disagree with the way a scientist personally feels the 
universe ought to run, he or she is reluctant to accept them. 207 

Is Tk ere a Copemican Conspiracy? 

As there are many honest scientists and biblical exegetes who might 
reveal these facts to the public, there are just as many uneducated ones 
who are oblivious to them, or knowledgeable but dishonest ones who hide 

205 Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on His Life and Work, p. 87. 

206 Kitty Ferguson, Measuring the Universe, 1999, p. 106. 

201 Ibid., p. 107. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

them. Still others are afraid to reveal them and hope that few people will 
seek to become educated and make provocative inquires, for then the 
proverbial cat will be out of the bag. Alexander von Humboldt, the founder 
of modem geography and of whom Charles Darwin said that he was “the 
greatest scientific traveler who ever lived,” and, of whom, after his death, 
Geoffrey Martin said “no individual scholar could hope any longer to 
master the world’s knowledge about the Earth,” 208 acknowledged 
geocentrism’s viability but also fear of revealing it: 

I have known, too, for a long time, that we 
have no arguments for the Copemican 
system, but I shall never dare to be the first 
to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasp’s nest. 

You will but bring upon yourself the scorn 
of the thoughtless multitude. If once a 
famous astronomer arises against the 
present conception, I will communicate, 
too, my observations; but to come forth as 
the first against opinions which the world 
has become fond of - I don’t feel the 



Not only can it be demonstrated mechanically, mathematically and 
scientifically that the sun and stars can revolve around the Earth, but using 
already-performed scientific experiments it can also be demonstrated that 
the Earth is in the center of the universe and motionless in space. In fact, 
the evidence is so plain that, in order to hide this information from the 
public, there is, as you will see before your eyes, a drama of cover-up and 
obfuscation that perhaps not even Hollywood could have dreamt up. 

Alexander von 
Humboldt 1769-1859 

208 Geoffrey J. Martin and Preston E. James, All Possible Worlds: A History of 
Geographical Ideas, p. 131. If there was anyone who knew his trade, it was 
Humboldt. In addition to the thirty volumes he wrote about his geographical field 
studies, in 1845, at the age of 76, he wrote the book Kosmos, which is said to 
contain everything he knew about the Earth. The first volume, a general overview 
of the universe, sold out in two months and was promptly translated into many 
languages. Humboldt died in 1859 and the fifth and final volume was published in 
1862, based on his notes for the work. 

209 Quoted in F. K. Schultze’s synopsis and translation of F. E. Pacshe’s 
Christliche Weltanschauuing (cited in De Lahore Solis, p. 133). Also cited in C. 
Schoepffer’s The Earth Stands Fast, C. H. Ludwig, 1900, p. 59. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Beneath it all is an intellectual war occurring between two opposing 
scientific philosophies that have been waging their respective campaigns 
for well nigh 500 years since its revival by Copernicus. Yet so successful 
have the heliocentrists been in their propaganda machine that the average 
person is completely unaware there still might be a controversy. The main 
reason for the ignorance is that anyone who dares to question the status 
quo of current cosmology has been successfully ridiculed and silenced, 
many being threatened with the fate like that of Ignaz Semmelweiss. 210 As 
in any high-stakes game, there will be lying, cheating, theft, murder, 
twisting of evidence, political intrigue, religious skirmishes, opposing 
philosophies, and fortunes and fame, which are all involved in the ongoing 
war between the sun-centered and Earth-centered systems. The stakes are 
indeed high; in fact, as we shall see, they are about as high as any stakes 
that history has to offer. 

Various battles between the heliocentrists and the geocentrists 
continued many years after the Catholic Church’s confrontation with 
Galileo. As noted earlier, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler sparked 
another skirmish, and this one, so say current historians, ended in the 
murder of Brahe at the hands of Kepler. 211 As we touched upon earlier, the 
next climactic point came when the interferometer was invented - a device 
that could measure minute differences in the speed of light. It was called 
an “interferometer” because it measured the interference of two or more 
light waves. The prevailing thought was: if the Earth is moving around the 
sun at 30 km/sec, this should have some effect on the speed of light 
discharged in the direction of that motion. A whole host of experimenters 
in the 1800s ( e.g ., Arago, Airy, Hoek, Fizeau, Fresnel, Michelson, Morley, 
Roentgen, Lodge, Rayleigh, Brace, et al.) confirmed to their satisfaction 
that the Earth was having no effect on the speed of light. In fact, it can be 
safely said that no experiment has ever been performed with such 
agonizing persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable 

210 Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss (d. 1865) suggested to his medical colleagues that 
women were dying after they gave birth because the doctors who delivered their 
babies were carrying germs from the cadavers they had been dissecting 
previously. Semmelweiss suggested that these medical students wash their hands 
before attempting to assist in childbirth. Prior to Semmelweiss’s solution, one 
woman in six died during childbirth. Unfortunately, Semmelweiss was ridiculed 
so severely by his medical colleagues that he suffered a mental breakdown and 
was committed to an insane asylum. 

211 Joshua Gilder and Anne-Lee Gilder, Heavenly Intrigue: Johannes Kepler, 
Tycho Brahe, and the Murder Behind One of History’s Greatest Scientific 
Discoveries, 2004. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

way, as that of determining whether the Earth is indeed moving through 
space. The haunting fact is: all of them have failed to detect any motion. 

Hendrick Lorentz: 1853 -1928 

By the time of physicist Henrick Lorentz in the early 1890s, it was 
obvious to many what the experimental results were saying. In Lorentz’s 
own words: “Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest.. ,” 212 
Lorentz knew the profound implications of his statement. He was 
very familiar with the dizzying world created by Einstein’s Relativity, 
which was desperately commandeered to answer the failure of the 
interferometers to detect any motion of the Earth. In a personal letter he 
wrote to Einstein in 1915, it is apparent that he was feeling the effects of 
the drift into which Einstein forced the human race. In a moment of 
seeming desperation Lorentz wishes for a divine being that could hold it 
all together and make it work. He writes to Einstein: 

A “world spirit,” who would permeate the whole system under 
consideration without being tied to a particular place or “in 
whom” the system would consist, and for whom it would be 
possible to “feel” all events directly would obviously 
immediately single out one of the frames of reference over all 
others. 213 

~ 12 Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion on 
Luminiferous Phenomena,” quoted in Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of 
Relativity, p. 20. 

212 Henrick Lorentz to Albert Einstein, January 1915, Robert Schulmann, A. J. 
Kox, Michael Janssen and Jozsef Illy, editors, The Collected Papers of Albert 
Einstein, Correspondence 1914-1918, 1998, Document 43. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

This is an amazing admission from Lorentz. Despite popular opinion, 
he was the impetus for Relativity, since it was his “transformation” 
equation that was the brains behind Einstein’s Special Relativity. In any 
case, it is obvious from the above quote that Lorentz could not live in the 
universe he created for himself. Consequently, he searched for a 
ubiquitous entity that could not only sense and coordinate all events 
instantaneously, but one that could also provide him with an absolute 
frame of reference. Why? Because Lorentz knew deep within his soul that 
it can work no other way. Things are an absolute mess without an absolute 
frame of reference from which everything else can be set and measured. 
As Einstein himself said: 

It has, of course, been known since the days of the ancient 
Greeks that in order to describe the movement of a body, a 
second body is needed to which the movement of the first is 
referred.” 214 

But alas, once the Copemican system came into vogue, no longer was 
there a comforting reference point. Consequently, Isaac Newton soon 
discovered that: “It may well be that there is no body really at rest to 
which the places and motions of others may be referred.” 215 Even with his 
alternative concept of “absolute space,” Newton found no solace: 

It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover and effectually 
to distinguish the true motions of particular bodies from the 
apparent, because the parts of that immovable space in which 
these motions are performed do by no means come under the 
observations of our senses. 216 

214 Article written by Einstein at the request of the London Times , November 28, 
1919, as cited in Einstein’s Ideas and Opinions, Wings Books, Crown Publishers, 
1954, p.229. 

215 Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica , Bk. 1 (1689); 
translated by Andrew Motte (1729), revised by Florian Cajori, 1934, Definition 
VII, p. 8. Newton continues in Definition VIII with: “And therefore as it is 
possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, 
there may be some body absolutely at rest; but impossible to know from the 
position of bodies to one another in our regions, whether any of these do keep the 
same position to that remote body; it follows that absolute rest cannot be 
determined from the position of bodies in our regions” All of Newton’s hand- 
wringing is superfluous if the Earth is fixed in space. 

216 Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Bk. 1 (1689), 
Definition XIV, p. 12. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Likewise, Arthur Eddington laments: 

.. .for there is nothing to guide him as to the planet to be selected 
for the standard of rest....There is no answer, and so far as we 
can see no possibility of an answer.... Our common knowledge 
of where things are is not a miraculous revelation of 
unquestionable authority.... Location is not something 
supematurally revealed to the mind.... It would explain for 
instance, why all the forces of Nature seem to have entered into a 
conspiracy to prevent our discovering the definite location of any 
object... naturally they cannot reveal it, if it does not 
exist....Nature has been too subtle...she has not left anything to 
betray the frame which she used.... Our predecessors were wise 
in referring all distances to a single frame of space.. , 217 

Indeed, through all the twists and turns of differeing cosmological 
theories, especially those of the relativistic variety that claim no absolutes, 
when the noise and clatter of claims and disclaims are over, all systems 
show a dependence on some type of absolute. Note the following: 











Modern Science 
Big Bang 
Steady State 



Fixed Stars 
Fixed Stars 

Fixed Stars 
Space and Time 

Speed of Light 
CMB Radiation 
Copernican Principle 
Universal Expansion 

So which one is correct? Fortunately, there is “a guide as to the planet 
to be selected as the standard or rest”; that Nature has not “betrayed” or 
formed a “conspiracy” against us; rather her knowledge comes from a 

217 Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 15, 17, 18, 27, 
25, in order of ellipses. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

“miraculous revelation of unquestionable authority” - God through Holy 
Writ. Pope Pius X once wrote: 

Pope Pius X: 1835-1914 

Human science gains greatly from revelation, for the latter opens 
out new horizons and makes known sooner other truths of the 
natural order, and because it opens the true road to investigation 
and keeps it safe from errors of application and of method. Thus 
does the lighthouse show many things they otherwise would not 
see, while it points out the rocks on which the vessel would 
suffer shipwreck. 218 

As even Andreas Osiander admitted in the Foreword he wrote for the 
book that started it all, Copernicus’ De revolutionibus : 

“But since for one and the same movement varying hypotheses 
are proposed from time to time.. .the astronomer much prefers to 
take the one which is easiest to grasp. Maybe the philosopher 
demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp 
anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely 
revealed to him.... And as far as hypotheses go, let no one 
expect anything in the way of certainty from astronomy, since 
astronomy can offer us nothing certain, lest, if anyone take as 

21 s Pope Pius X, encyclical of March 12, 1904, Iucunda Sane, 35. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

true that which has been constructed for another use, he go away 
from this discipline a bigger fool than when he came to it.” 219 

Andreas Osiander: 1498 -1552 

If science chooses to conspire against the revelation, life will, indeed, 
seem like a “conspiracy” against him, for he will be forever mired in the 
haunted house of moving targets and elusive shadows. Without a standard 
of rest, simply put, man will never find rest. As George Berkeley once 
registered against Newton as he recognized the full implications of the 
Copemican theory, if we start off with relative observations but end up 
with an absolute reference frame (Newton’s “absolute space”), then 
somewhere along the way we must have been duly influenced by 
philosophical preferences. Accordingly he observes: 

If every place is relative, then every motion is relative, and as 
motion cannot be understood without a determination of its 
direction which in its turn cannot be understood except in 
relation to our or some other body. 

Up, down, right, left, all directions and places are based on some 
relation and it is necessary to suppose another body distant from 
the moving one. 220 

219 On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, trans. by Charles Glenn Wallis, 
1995, p. 4. 

220 De Motu (“On Motion”), Section 58, 1721, discussing Newton’s two-globe 
thought experiment. Cited in William G. V. Rosser’s The Theory of General 
Relativity, pp. 453-454, citing Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, 1959, p. 97. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo and the Truth about Copernicanism 

George Berkeley: 1685 -1753 

Following the Greek Fleraclides, Berkeley was one of the first 
modems to hold that it would be possible to construct a system in which 
the universe rotates around a fixed Earth, and one that will produce the 
same mechanical effects when the Earth rotates in a fixed universe: 

The let us suppose that the sky of the fixed stars is created; 
suddenly from the conception of the approach of the globes to 
different parts of that sky the motion will be conceived. 221 

Close to two hundred years later, Ernst Mach put the idea and its 
mathematics on paper. But without a sure footing as to which system was 
actually correct, Mach’s observation led inevitably to the theory of 
Relativity. Alas, late 19 th century man came ever so close to discovering, 
scientifically, the correct system, but faced with such an unexpected and 
overwhelming truth, he, as the common saying goes, blinked first, and 
things have never been the same since. Einstein was well aware of the anti- 
Copemican implications of the interferometer experiments. In the words of 
one of his biographers: 

The problem which now faced science was considerable. For 
there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the 
Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole 
Copernican theory and was unthinkable. 222 

221 De Motu, Section 59, as translated by Andre K. T. Assis in Relational 
Mechanics, 1999, p. 104. As Mach’s precursor, Berkeley held that gravity was the 
only real force and that inertia was Newton’s invention. Whereas Newton held to 
F = ma and inertial forces as fictitious, Berkeley opened the way for viewing 
inertial forces as real forces, caused by the universe’s collective gravity. 

222 Einstein: The Life and Times, 1984, pp. 109-110. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Everyone in the physics establishment saw the same implications, and 
they were beside themselves with consternation. As several authors 
describe it: 

The data [of the interferometers] were almost unbelievable.... 
There was only one other possible conclusion to draw - that the 
Earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous. 223 

Always the speed of light was precisely the same....Thus, failure 
[of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at 
different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at 
rest’...It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring 
absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that 
the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at 
rest in space? 224 

In the effort to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.. .the 
thought was advanced that the Earth might be stationary....Such 
an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in 
effect that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the 
universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by 
revolving around it. 225 

Even Michelson couldn’t avoid the implications of his experiment: 

This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the 
phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally 
accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves. 226 


As Einstein wrestled with the cosmological implications of the 
General Theory, the first of these alternatives, the Earth-centered 
universe of the Middle Ages, was effectively ruled out.. , 227 

223 Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, p. 76. 

224 Adolf Baker, Modern Physics & Antiphysics, pp. 53-54. 

225 Arthur S. Otis, Light Velocity and Relativity, p. 58. 

226 Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous 
Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125. 

227 Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 267. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

Indeed it was “ruled out,” yet not by any scientific proof but only 
because, after having five hundred years of Copernicanism drummed into 
one’s head from childhood, it was “unthinkable” to believe that mankind 
got it wrong and that the Earth was actually motionless in space. But there 
was a price to pay for this presumption. Rejecting what was “unthinkable” 
created what was unmanageable. Since, on the one hand, an Earth-centered 
cosmos was “ruled out,” but, on the other hand, Einstein was forced to 
answer both the results of the interferometer experiments and Maxwell’s 
electromagnetic equations, his only “alternative” was to invent a whole 
new physics; in fact, it was necessary to adopt a whole new way of looking 
at the world. If the Earth wouldn’t budge, then science had to budge. 
Consequently, Relativity theory advanced principles and postulates that 
heretofore would have been considered completely absurd by previous 
scientists, things such as matter shrinking, clocks slowing down, and mass 
growing larger; that two people could age at different rates, that space was 
curved, that light travels at the same speed for all observers (even 
observers moving at the speed of light); that time and space are one entity, 
and many other strange and bizarre concepts, all in an effort to answer the 
numerous experiments that showed the Earth was motionless in space. In 
that day The Times of London called Einstein’s Relativity “an affront to 
common sense.” 228 Indeed it was, and still is. 

In the face of Relativity’s fantastic postulates and the utter upheaval it 
caused in science and culture, one would expect that the burden of proof 
would be completely on Einstein and his fellow Relativists to show that his 
theory was the only viable explanation of reality, not merely an ad hoc 
alternative that was created under the pressure of unexplainable 
experiments. But the historical record shows that this was never done. By 
1920, Relativity was accepted with impunity, 229 for up to that time, and 
still today, it is the only way to escape the “unthinkable” alternative - a 
motionless Earth in the center of the universe. But what the public at large 
is kept from knowing is that, if Relativity fails, there is no other answer for 
modem man. Men will be forced to accept an Earth-centered cosmos, for 
that is what all the interferometer experiments dictate. As even his 
biographer suggests, we will discover that Einstein’s Relativity was 
invented for the express puipose of freeing the world from having to adopt 

228 Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 101. In 1920, physicist Oliver Lodge said that 
Relativity was “repugnant to common sense” and of Relativists he said “however 
much we may admire their skill and ability, I ask whether they ought not to be 
regarded as Bolsheviks and pulled up” (“Popularity Relativity and the Velocity of 
Light,” Nature, vol. CVI, November 4, 1920, p. 326). 

229 See Volume II, “Einstein: Everything is Relative,” “Do the 1919 Eclipse 
Photographs Prove General Relativity?” 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

the “unthinkable” immobile Earth - the very one Tycho Brahe had 
bequeathed to Kepler and which the latter refused to accept for his own 
devious purposes. In fact, Einstein would be called “a new Copernicus.” 230 

As this book progresses, because there is such an intimate li nk 
between the heliocentric/geocentric battle and the cosmology of Albert 
Einstein, much of the time will be spent unraveling and critiquing the 
theories of Relativity. We will seek to break down the fa 9 ade upon which 
Relativity is built. Although Relativity proponents will claim that, since 
Einstein’s mathematics can be made to work, even then, the question that 
haunts Relativity is whether Einstein’s math is merely a case of saying that 
3 + 1=4 when in reality the correct equation is 2 + 2 = 4. In other words, 
does Einstein’s math represent what is occurring in physical reality, or 
does the math merely save the appearances? 

Karp Popper puts this phenomenon in proper perspective: 

Properly understood, a mathematical hypothesis does not claim 
that anything exists in nature which corresponds to it....It erects, 
as it were, a fictitious mathematical world behind that of 
appearance, but without the claim that this world exists. [It is] to 
be regarded only as a mathematical hypothesis, and not as 
anything really existing in nature. 231 

Certainly, if the Earth is fixed, then space and time are fixed, and 
consequently Einstein’s model is fallacious, even though the math can be 
made to look as if it is correct. As physicist Herbert Dingle pointed out 
about mathematics: 

230 Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 192. 

231 Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, p. 169, commenting on the concepts 
of George Berkeley, Sir is, 1744, p. 234, and De Motu, pp. 18, 39. Popper adds: 
“Blit it can easily be misinterpreted as claiming more, as claiming to describe a 
real world behind the world of appearance. But no such world could be described; 
for the description would necessarily be meaningless” {ibid.). From a similar yet 
slightly different perspective, Ernst Gehrcke wrote in 1913: “The theory of 
relativity is nothing but a completely novel interpretation of the theory of 
electrodynamics and optics of bodies in motion, which Lorentz had already 
developed. The theory of relativity is not distinguished by the creation of 
substantially new equations, but by a substantially new interpretation of the 
known transformation equations of Lorentz. The arguments made against this 
interpretation condemn it, not the equations themselves, which, as was stated, are 
not Einstein’s, but rather Lorentz’s equations, and still stand intact today” (“Die 
gegen die Relativitatstheorie erhobenen Einwande,” Die Naturwissenschaften, 
Vol. l,No. 3, Jan. 17, 1913, pp. 62-66, reprinted in Kritik der Relativitatstheorie, 
Hermann Meusser, Berlin, 1924, p. 20, emphasis in original). 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as 
truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no 
possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish 
them only by experience or by reasoning outside the 
mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the 
mathematical solution and its supposed physical correlate. 232 

As we will see in the following pages, however, although 
mathematics is touted as the handmaiden of modem Copemican 
cosmology, in reality it has become its worst enemy. In every case, the 
mathematics reveals insurmountable flaws in whatever cosmological 
model is being proposed. Whether it’s the Big Bang theory, the Steady 
State theory, the closed universe, the open universe, the Friedman- 
Robertson-Walker model or the dozens of other possibilities available 
from plugging in different numbers to Einstein’s field equations, the math 
always reveals incongruities. None of them can claim supremacy. As 
Omer noted in 1948: 

E. Hubble has shown that the observational data which he has 
obtained do not agree satisfactorily with the homogeneous 
relativistic cosmological models [Big Bang models]... the 
homogeneous models give an unrealistic picture of the physical 
universe. Perhaps this should not be too surprising, since Tolman 
[j Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 20, 169, 
1934] has shown that, subject to certain simplifying conditions, a 
homogeneous model is unstable under perturbations in density. 

Any local tendency to expand would be emphasized by further 
expansion. Likewise, any local tendency to contract would be 
followed by further contraction. Thus if a homogeneous model is 
disturbed, it becomes nonhomogeneous. 233 

The connection between modem man’s quest to deny the Earth a 
central place in the cosmos and the search for life on other planets was 
stated no better than in a recent article by National Geographic. 

It’s hard to overstate the excitement scientists feel at the prospect 
of seeing that faint blue dot. If it told of a watery, temperate 

232 Science at the Crossroads, p. 33. 

233 Guy C. Omer, Jr., “A Nonhomogeneous Cosmological Model,” Journal of the 
American Astronomical Society, vol. 109, 1949, pp. 165-166. See also W. B. 
Bonnor, “The Instability of the Einstein Universe.” 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

place, humanity would face a 21 st century version of 
Copernicus’s realization nearly 500 years ago that the Earth is 
not the center of the solar system. The discovery would show 
“that we’re not in a special place, that we might be part of a 
continuum of life in the cosmos, and that life might be very 
common,” says Michael Meyer, an astronomer at the University 
of Arizona. 234 

Indeed, it is the quest of today’s scientists to silence all challengers to 
modem cosmology. For them, the Earth must remain in the remote 
recesses of space so that mankind need not be troubled by the possibility 
that Someone is behind it all and a Someone to whom they must hold 
themselves accountable. This is, indeed, a high-stakes game. 

Fortunately, there are some voices in the wilderness of academia that 
have seen and announced the implications of the evidence. Catholic 
scientist, author and M.I.T. professor Wolfgang Smith writes: 

If there has been little debate in recent times on the subject of 
geocentrism, the reason is clear: almost everyone takes it for 
granted that the geocentrist claim is a dead issue, on a par, let us 
say, with the flat-Earth hypothesis. To be sure, the ancient 
doctrine has yet a few devoted advocates in Europe and 
America, whose arguments are neither trivial nor uninformed; 
the problem is that hardly anyone else seems to care, hardly 
anyone is listening. Even the biblically oriented creation-science 
movement, which of late has gained a certain prestige and 
influence, has for the most part disavowed geocentrism. The fact 
remains, however, that geocentrist cosmology constitutes not 
only an ancient, but indeed a traditional doctrine; should we not 
presume that as such it enshrines a perennial truth? To maintain, 
moreover, that this truth has nothing to say on a cosmographic 
plane - that the doctrine, in other words, is “merely symbolic or 
allegorical” - to think thus is to join the tribe of theologians who 
are ever willing to “demythologize” at the latest behest of the 
scientific establishment. It will not be without interest, therefore, 
to investigate whether the geocentrist claim - yes, understood 
cosmographically! - had indeed been ruled out of court. I shall 
urge that it has not. As regards the Galileo controversy, I propose 
to show that Galilean heliocentrism has proved to be 

234 Cited in “The History and the Pseudo-History of Science,” by Gene Callahan, 
January 25, 2005. 


Chapter 1: The New Galil eo an d the T ruth about Copernicanism 

scientifically untenable, and that in fact the palm of victory 

belongs to the wise saintly Cardinal Bellarmine. 235 

Perhaps there may be a few who will see the truth, but, the world’s 
scientists, by and large, are the last on our list of concerns. We do not 
expect those whose careers, salaries, and Nobel Prizes depend upon 
supporting Copernicanism, Evolution, and Relativity to their dying breath, 
will ever consider that the Earth is motionless and in the center of the 
universe. As noted earlier, an immobile Earth in the center of the universe 
would destroy all three legs of Scientism’s stool in one fell swoop. 
Sadly, rather than prompting such men to lift their eyes in awe, the 
information gathered herein may only serve to harden their hearts even 
more, and thus serve as a testimony against them when they meet their 
Maker. As such, our book is geared to the next generation of scientists and 
theologians who are tired of the cosmological shell game that has been 
going on for the last several centuries. 

In closing this chapter, let us say that, in spite of the harsh criticisms 
we levy against modem scientists, we are not disparaging their intellects. 
The halls of science house some of the most intelligent men this world has 
ever known. One glance at their mathematical equations and we know we 
are not dealing with ordinary human beings. Most of these men are 
geniuses. But the sad fact is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, how 
many books you’ve written, what chairs of science or mathematics you 
hold, how many Nobel prizes you’ve won, or how popular you are. The 
difficult but undeniable truth is: if you start out with the wrong premise, 
you are going to end up with the wrong conclusion. With the wrong 
answers, as the saying goes, ‘you may be able to fool some of the people 
some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time.’ The 
advantage this work has is that it starts with the right premise, for it 
obtained that premise from divine revelation and was not afraid to accept it 
at face value, and now all that is left is to work backwards, as it were, and 
verify the premise by using the very tools with which modem man prides 
himself: science, math, and logic. As Scripture assures us: “But thou hast 
arranged all things by measure and number and weight.” 236 

235 The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology>, p. 149. 

236 Wisdom 11:20 [Douay-Rheims: 11:21], 


"Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus 
proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not can use either 
picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the 
heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the 
sun to be at rest." 

Stephen Hawking 237 

"...the most recent scientific findings vindicate the Church of 
1633." Fr. Walter Brandmuller 238 

"/ have two things to say that might surprise you: first, 
geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, 
heliocentrism is not any more or less correct." Phil Plait 239 

"To entertain the notion that we may, in fact, have a special 
location in the universe is, for many, unthinkable. Nevertheless, 
that is exactly what some small groups of physicists around the 
world have recently been considering." 

Timothy Clifton and Pedro Ferreira 240 

"Perhaps it is time for astronomers to pause and wonder 
whether they know too much and understand too little." 

Herbert Friedman 241 

"We are unreconstructed geocentrists hiding behind a 
Copernican veneer." Carl Sagan 242 

237 The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, NY, Bantam, 
2010, p. 41. 

238 “Light and Shadows: Defending Church History Amid Faith, Facts and 
Legends” (2009), p. 134. Fr. Brandmuller is the President of the Pontifical 
Committee for Historical Science and the Vatican’s chief historian. 

239 The Bad Astronomer website: 

240 “Does Dark Energy Really Exist?” Scientific American, April 2009, p. 48. 

241 The Amazing Universe, National Geographic Society, 1975, p. 180. 

242 Carl Sagan, A Universe Not Made For Us, p. 39 


Ckapter 2 

Answering Common Objections about Geocentrism 

I n this chapter we will address some of the more common and popular 
objections that are raised against geocentrism, as well as demonstrate 
that the purported proofs of heliocentrism are invalid. We address 
these objections at this early stage of the book so that the reader can have 
an open mind when reading the rest of the book, as well as resolve any 
latent prejudices he may have formed in his mind from a lifelong advocacy 
to the heliocentric model. In answering these issues, however, we will do 
so only in a preliminary manner in this present chapter. The remaining 
details will be addressed more comprehensively in later chapters. 

Objection #1: Doesn’t tbe Smaller Body Always 
Revolve Around tbe Larger Body? 

One of the more common objections to geocentrism is the claim that 
Isaac Newton’s laws of motion prove that the Earth, because it is smaller, 
must revolve around the sun, which is larger. In reality, Newton neither 
said nor proved any such thing. A close examination of his laws reveals 
that he merely stated, of two or more bodies in a rotating system, all bodies 
will revolve around the center of mass (also known as the center of 
gravity). As Newton himself put it: “That the center of the system of the 
world is immovable: this is acknowledged by all, although some contend 
that the Earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center.” 243 

243 Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 3: The 
System of the World , Proposition X, Hypothesis I. The Latin original is: Centrum 
systematis mundane quiescere. Hoc ab omnibus consessum est, dum aliqui terrain, 
alii solem in centro systematis quiescere contendant. Videamus quid inde 
sequatur.” In Proposition XI, Theorema XI, Newton adds: “That the common 
center of gravity of the Earth, the sun, and all the planets, is immovable. For that 
center either is at rest or moves uniformly forwards in a right line; but if that 
center moved, the center of the world would move also, against the Hypothesis.” 
Original Latin is: Commune centrum gravitates terra, solis & planetamm omnium 
quiescere. Nam centrum illud (per legum corol. iv) vel quiescent vel progredietur 
uniformiter in directum. Sed centro illo semper progrediente centrum mundi 
quoque movebitur contra hypothesin. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Isaac Newton: 1642 - 1727 

In a closed system where the only two bodies present are a massive 
sun and a small Earth, the center of mass will be much closer to the sun 
than the Earth, and thus, in that system the Earth would, indeed, revolve 
around the sun. But this is precisely the problem with the appeal to 
Newtonian mechanics: the appeal invariably limits the system to two 
bodies, the sun and the Earth, while it ignores the rest of the universe. 
When the rest of the universe is incoiporated, we now have a center of 
mass that is dependent on far more than the local bodies and their forces 
we experience in our tiny solar system. On that basis, as we shall see, even 
Newton could not object to the Earth being the center of mass for the 
universe. The grand summation of his three laws of motion (namely, in a 
closed system the acceleration of the center of mass equals zero), will 
allow an immobile Earth to be the center if the universe is included in 
Newton’s equations. As the eminent cosmologist Fred Hoyle admitted 
concerning past attempts to use Newton to support heliocentrism: 

Although in the nineteenth century this argument was believed to 
be a satisfactory justification of the heliocentric theory, one 
found causes for disquiet if one looked into it a little more 
carefully. When we seek to improve on the accuracy of 
calculation by including mutual gravitational interactions 
between planets, we find - again in order to calculate correctly - 
that the center of the solar system must be placed at an abstract 
point known as the “center of mass,” which is displaced quite 
appreciably from the center of the Sun. And if we imagine a star 
to pass moderately close to the solar system, in order to calculate 
the perturbing effect correctly, again using the inverse-square 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

rule, it could be essential to use a “center of mass” which 
included the star. The “center” in this case would lie even farther 
away from the center of the Sun. It appears, then, that the 
“center” to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in 
which the local system is considered to be isolated from the 
universe as a whole. If a new body is added to the set from 
outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes. 244 

Sir Fred Hoyle: 1915 - 2001 

As we can see from Hoyle’s account, even if there is only one star to 
take into account, its mass and gravitational force must be added into the 
formula for determining the center of mass (or barycenter). Although there 
are many local centers of mass contained in the universe, this does not 
impinge on the center of mass for the universe itself. In other words, while 
each galaxy has its own center of mass; while our sun and its planets have 
a center of mass near the sun; and while the moons of the planets have a 
center of mass near their respective planet, these are only local centers of 
mass. When we consider all the mass of the universe, there is only one 
place where the universe’s center of mass exists. If the universe rotates, 
Newton’s laws require that it rotate around its singular center of mass, and 
the Earth can certainly occupy that solitary position. As Hoyle states it, the 
equivalence between of the two systems was recognized not only in the 
geometry, but also in the gravitational and inertial dynamics: 

.. .we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for 
that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so 

244 Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, 1973, p. 85. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary 
motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in 
dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to 
await the present century. 

In short, although our solar system has its own local center of mass, in 
the larger picture, it cannot be considered an isolated system. Advocates of 
heliocentrism can mount no opposition to this logic since they already 
believe our solar system is revolving around the Milky Way, which, of 
course, it cannot do unless it is experiencing a strong gravitational 
attraction from the center of the Milky Way. Using that same principle, 
when we add to our galaxy the billions of other galaxies present in the 
universe, 246 we can certainly understand that they will have a substantial 
effect on determining the universe’s barycenter. 

As stated very simply by some of the most respected modem 
physicists (even if they don’t prefer the geocentric model): “Mass there 
governs inertia here.” 247 Although Newton failed to take into account the 
gravitational or inertial forces laden in the rest of the universe when he 
composed his laws of motion and preferred instead to add them in by hand, 
modem scientists have voiced one chorus in agreeing that Newton’s 
blindness to the “mass there” is the primary inadequacy of his theory. 
Although Newton never admitted it, the missing parts of his theory directly 
affect the choice one makes for either Copernicus or Ptolemy. As the 
Brazilian physicist, Andre Assis, puts it: 

As we have seen, Leibniz and Mach emphasized that the 
Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copemican heliocentric 
system are equally valid and correct.. .the Copemican world 
view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo 
and Newton...the gravitational attraction between the sun and 
the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun 
because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed stars. The 

245 Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, p. 82. Also 
from the same book: “Today we cannot say that the Copemican theory is “right” 
and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense. The two theories 
are...physically equivalent to one another” (ibid, p. 88). 

~ 46 The universe is estimated to contain five sextillion stars, or 5 x 10 22 stars. 

247 Misner, Charles W., Kip S. Thorne and John A. Wheeler, Gravitation, 1973, 
pp. 543, 546-47, 549. See Kip Thorne in a 2004 flash video speaking of Mach’s 
Principle in relation to Gravity Probe-B and its detection of the dragging of space 
with respect to the Earth at 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

distant matter in the universe exerts a force, -m g a m f, on 
accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits. 

In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and 
without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, 
other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth. In relational 
mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force (8.17) 248 
such that the equation of motion takes the form of equation 
(8.47). 249 Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced 
by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation 
of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a 
period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and 
at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal 
rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one 
day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the 
earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real 
Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface 
in the form -2 m g u me X a) Ue where u me is the velocity of the 
test body relative to the earth and o> Ue is the angular rotation of 
the distant masses around the earth. The effect of this force will 
be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating 
together with the fixed stars. 250 

A simpler way of viewing this is to take the “Absolute Space” in 
Newton’s F = ma and replace it with Absolute Matter, namely, the stars 
and their collective gravity. Whereas in Newton’s Absolute Space the 
centrifugal (C f ), Coriolis (C 0 ) and Euler (E) forces are “fictitious” or 
secondary, the model for Absolute Matter they are real and written F = ma 
+ Cf+ C 0 + E, the latter three caused by the gravity of the stars (G s ), so that 
we can write F = ma + G s or F - ma = G s . In essence, the gravity of the 
stars acts precisely like the rigid Absolute Space that Newton wanted but 
could not find the cause. Any object \m\ in sudden movement [ a ] against 
the spatial rigidness caused by stellar gravity [G, or F] will result in equal 
and opposite inertial forces, which is why T. E. Phipps once said: “When 
the subway jerks, it’s the fixed stars that throw you down.” 

A paper published in January 2013 in the European Journal of 
Physics, shows by mathematical analysis how the Newtonian and Machian 

248 Fim = -'f™ g [a m s + £us x (fSus x 4s) + 2 u rnS x <o„ s + r„s x ■ P- 176. 

U9 T. I j=iFjm-^rn g [d mS + fi us x (<3„ s x ? mS ) + 2 u mS x fi us + r us x ^ = 0,p. 185. 
250 Andre Koch Torres Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

systems combined support the Earth-centered universe with the sun 
revolving around the Earth. He writes in the Conclusion to his paper: 

The analysis of planetary motions has been performed in the 
Newtonian framework with the assumption of Mach’s principle. 

The kinematical equivalence of the Copemican (heliocentric) 
and the Neo-tychonian (geocentric) systems is shown to be a 
consequence of the presence of pseudo-potential (23) in the 
geocentric system, which, according to Mach, must be regarded 
as the real potential originating from the fact of the simultaneous 
acceleration of the Universe. This analysis can be done on any 
other celestial body observed from the Earth. Since Sun and 
Mars are chosen arbitrarily, and there is nothing special about 
Mars, one can expect to come up with the same general 
conclusion. There is another interesting remark that follows from 
this analysis. If one could put the whole Universe in accelerated 
motion around the Earth, the pseudo-potential corresponding to 
pseudo-force (21) will immediately be generated. That same 
pseudo-potential causes the Universe to stay in that very state of 
motion, without any need of exterior forces acting on it. 251 

As it stands, modern science can mount no objection to geocentrism 
due to the duality of its own force laws. Mach’s Principle and Einstein’s 
use of it 252 allows the Earth to be at rest in the center of the universe and 

251 Luka Popov, “Newtonian-Machian analysis of the neo-Tychonian model of 
planetary motions,” European Journal of Physics, 34, 383-391 (2013). Also 
available at arXiv: 1301.6045 [physics.class-ph]. Dr. Popov is employed by the 
Dept, of Physics, University of Zagreb, Bujenicka cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia. 

252 “Mach’s Principle” was the term coined by Albert Einstein in 1918. As 
Barbour notes: “In his first published reference to the principle he attributed to 
Mach, Einstein (1912, p. 39) formulated it as ‘the entire inertia of a point mass is 
the effect of the presence of all other masse, deriving from a kind of interaction 
with the latter.’ A footnote appended to this sentence announced its origin: ‘This 
is exactly the point of view which E. Mach urged in his acute investigations on the 
subject. (E. Mach, The Development of the Principle of Dynamics. Second 
Chapter. Newton’s Views of Time, Space and Motion.) The attribution is 
deliberate and unequivocal” (J. Barbour and H. Pfister, Mach’s Principle: From 
Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity, p. 11). For our purposes, Mach’s Principle 
of reciprocity holds that forces such as inertia, centrifugal, the Coriolis and Euler, 
are created by distant masses when the Earth is taken at rest. Some descriptions of 
Mach’s Principle in this light are the following: Dennis Sciama: Inertial frames 
are those which are unaccelerated relative to the ‘fixed stars,’ that is, relative to a 
suitably defined mean of all the matter in the universe”; G. B. Brown: “Inertia is 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

have the sun revolving around it. The distant matter ( e.g ., galaxies) that 
rotates around the Earth creates a centrifugal force, which acts like but 
counteracts the force of gravity, keeping the sun a certain distance from 
the motionless Earth, namely, 93 million miles. 253 As Einstein notes: 

We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal 
forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can 
instead just as well trace them back to the rotational movement 
of the distant ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby 
we treat K' as ‘at rest.’...On the other hand, the following 
important argument speaks for the relativistic perspective. The 
centrifugal force that works on a body under given conditions is 
determined by precisely the same natural constants as the action 
of a gravitational field on the same body (i.e., its mass), in such a 
way that we have no means to differentiate a ‘centrifugal field’ 
from a gravitational field.. ..This quite substantiates the view that 
we may regard the rotating system K' as at rest and the 

not due to movement with respect to ‘absolute space,’ but due to surrounding 
matter”; F. A. Kaemppfer: “By ‘Mach’s Program’ is meant the intention to 
understand all inertial effects as being caused by gravitational interaction”; P. 
Moon and D. Spencer: “Inertia is not an inherent property of matter but is the 
result of forces caused by the distant galaxies”; Schiff: “The inertial properties of 
matter on the local scene derive in some way from the existence of the distant 
masses of the universe and their distribution in space”; Mario Bunge: “The motion 
and consequently the mass of every single body is determined (caused, produced) 
by the remaining bodies in the universe”; Jammer: “The inertia of any body is 
determined by the masses of the universe and their distribution”; M. Reinhardt: 
“The inertial mass of a body is caused by its interaction with the other bodies in 
the universe”; T. E. Phipps: “When the subway jerks, it’s the fixed stars that throw 
you down”; Raine: “Inertial forces should be generated entirely by the motion of a 
body relative to the bulk of matter in the universe”; J. Barbour: “Mach suggested 
that inertial motion here on the earth and in the solar system is causally 
determined in accordance with some quite definite but as yet unknown law by the 
totality of the matter in the universe.” All cited by Assis, p. 121. 

253 The mass of the sun and the amount of energy it produces also play a part in 
the reason it is 93 million miles from Earth. If the sun were placed too close or too 
far from the Earth then biological life would not be sustainable. The annual 
distance from the sun to the Earth is between 91 million and 94 million miles. 
This is due to both the elliptical orbit of the sun and the precession of the universe. 
All these factors (i.e., mass, energy, distance) result in a 24-hour diurnal 
revolution of the sun around the Earth, as opposed to a 23 hour, 56 minute and 4 
second diurnal revolution of the universe. This difference results in the sun 
lagging behind the universe by about 1° per day, which we see as it travels 
annually counter-clockwise through the twelve constellations of the Zodiac. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

centrifugal field as a gravitational field....The kinematic 
equivalence of two coordinate systems, namely, is not restricted 
to the case in which the two systems, K [the universe] and K' 

[the Earth] are in uniform relative translational motion. The 
equivalence exists just as well from the kinematic standpoint 
when for example the two systems rotate relative to one 
another. 254 

The principle of equivalence was not limited to Einstein’s early use of 
Mach’s mechanics, but also much later. In a 1950 paper the same principle 
appears, only K and K' are now A and I: 

Let A be a system uniformly accelerated with respect to an 
“inertial system.” Material points, not accelerated with respect to 
I, are accelerated with respect to A, the acceleration of all the 
points being equal in magnitude and direction. They behave as if 
a gravitational field exists with respect to A, for it is a 
characteristic property of the gravitational field that the 
acceleration is independent of the particular nature of the body. 
There is no reason to exclude the possibility of interpreting this 
behavior as the effect of a “true” gravitational field (principle of 
equivalence). 255 

This also means, of course, that not only the sun but the planets and 
every other moving object in our system are controlled by the galaxies. As 
such, it takes the mystery out of inertia and why the planets travel in 
precise orbits. As Barbour notes: 

Kepler’s standpoint is particularly interesting, since he was 
deeply impressed by Tycho Brahe’s ‘demolition’ of the crystal 
spheres. Kepler posed the problem of astronomy in the famous 
words: “From henceforth the planets follow their paths through 
the ether like the birds in the air. We must therefore philosophize 
about these things differently.” His response to the problem was 
very ‘Machian’.... The planets could not possibly follow such 
precise orbits by a mere inspection of empty space - they must 
be both guided and driven in their motion by the real masses in 

254 Einstein’s October 1914 paper titled: “Die formale Gmndlage der allgemeinen 
Relativitatstheorie,” trans. by Carl Hoefer, in Mach's Principle: From Newton’s 
Bucket to Quantum Gravity, eds. Julian Barbour and Herbert Pfister, pp. 69, 71. 

255 Albert Einstein, “On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation,” Scientific 
American, Vol. 182, No. 4, April 1950, p. 14. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

the universe, namely, the sun and the sphere of the fixed stars. 

This deeply held conviction was a decisive factor in Kepler’s 
discovery of the laws of planetary motion - truly, a pre-Machian 
triumph of Mach’s Principle.” 256 

In this perspective, the total mass of the universe is an integral factor 
in determining both the inertial and gravitational forces that affect us, as 
well as the forces that create the barycenter of the universe. Certainly no 
one can object, then, if the Creator decided long ago to put the Earth in the 
barycenter, while obeying all the laws that we have discovered today. 

In the geocentric system we will be working with in this volume, the 
star field and the sun work in tandem. The star field is aligned with the sun 
and is weighted in one of its hemispheres, which will cause a slight 
precession and nutation as the universe rotates around the Earth. The mass 
of the universe is in perfect balance with the gravity of the sun. As Assis 
notes: “...the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real 
gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses 
around the earth....In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an 
essentially constant distance from the sun.” 

Center of Mas 



Heliocentric system eliminates the stars for the solar system's center of mass 

Geocentric system includes the stars for the solar system's center of mass 257 

256 Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity, p. 9. 

257 See CDROM for animation of the Center of Mass. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Newtonian-Macliian Mathematical Analysis of 
Neo-tychonian Model of Planetary Motions^ 8 

The calculation of the trajectories in the Sun-Earth-Mars system will 
be performed in two different models, both in the framework of Newtonian 
mechanics. First model is the well-known Copernican system, which 
assumes the Sun is at rest and all the planets orbit around it. Second one is 
less known model developed by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), according to 
which the Earth stands still, the Sun orbits around the Earth, and other 
planets orbit around the Sun. The term “Neo-tychonian system” refers to 
the assumption that orbits of distant masses around the Earth are 
synchronized with the Sun’s orbit. It is the aim of this paper to show the 
kinematical and dynamical equivalence of these systems, under the 
assumption of Mach’s principle. 

The discussion of motion of celestial bodies is one of the most 
interesting episodes in the history of science. There are two diametrically 
opposite schools of thought: one that assumes that the Sun stands still, and 
Earth and other planets orbit around it; and another that assumes that the 
Earth stands still, and Sun and other planets in some manner orbit around 
the Earth. The first school of thought comes from Aristarchus (310-230 
BC) and is generally addressed as heliocentrism, another from Ptolemy 
(90-168 BC) and is generally known as geocentrism. Since Aristotle, the 
ultimate authority in science for more than two millennia, accepted the 
geocentric assumption, it became dominant viewpoint among scientists of 
the time. The turnover came with Copernicus (so-called “Copernican 
revolution”) who in his work De Revolutionibus proposed a hypothesis 
that the Sun stands in the middle of the known Universe, and that Earth 
orbits around it, together with other planets. Copernicus’ system was 
merely better than Ptolemy’s, because Copernicus assumed the trajectories 
of the planets are perfect circles, and required the same number of 
epicycles (sometimes even more) as Ptolemy’s model. The accuracy of 
Ptolemy’s model is still a subject of vivid debates among historicna of 
science. [2] 

The next episode in this controversy is Kepler’s system with elliptical 
orbits of planets around the Sun. That system did not require epicycles, it 
was precise and elegant. It is therefore general view that Kepler’s work 
finally settled the question whether it is the Sun or the Earth that moves. 

25S This paper was accepted for publication by the European Journal of Physics in 
January 2013. L. Popov, “Newtonian-Machian analysis of the neo-Tychonian 
model of planetary motions,” Eur. J. Phys. 34, 383-391 (2013). The author is Luka 
Popov. Also available at arXiv:1301.6045 [physics.class-ph]. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

But what is less known is that Tycho Brahe, Kepler’s tutor, developed a 
geostatic system that was just as accurate and elegant as Kepler’s: the Sun 
orbits around the Earth, and all the other planets orbit around the Sun. The 
trajectories are ellipses, and all the Kepler’s laws are satisfied. In that 
moment of history, the Kepler’s and Brahe’s models were completely 
equivalent and equally elegant, since neither of them could explain the 
mechanism and reason why the orbits are the way they are. It had to wait 
for Newton. 

Sir Isaac Newton, as it is generally considered, gave ultimate 
explanation of planetary motions that was in accord with Kepler’s model, 
and excluded Brahe’s one. The laws of motions and the inverse square law 
of gravity could reproduce all the observed data only with the assumption 
that the Sun (/. e. the center of mass of the system, which can be very well 
approximated by the center of the Sun) stands still, and all planets move 
around it. According to Newton’s laws, it is impossible for the small Earth 
to keep the big Sun in its orbit: the gravitational pull is just too weak. This 
argument is very strong, and it seems to settle the question for good. 

But in the end of 19th century, the famous physicist and philosopher 
Ernst Mach (1839-1916) came with the principle which states the 
equivalence of non-inertial frames. Using the famous “Newton’s bucket” 
argument, Mach argues that all so-called pseudo-forces (forces which 
results from accelerated motion of the reference frame) are in fact real 
forces originating from the accelerated motion of distant masses in the 
Universe, as observed by the observer in the non-inertial frame. According 
to Mach’s principle, the Earth could be considered as the “pivot point” of 
the Universe: the fact that the Universe is orbiting around the Earth will 
create the exact same forces that we usually ascribe to the motion of the 

Mach’s principle played a major role in the development of Ein s tein’s 
general theory of relativity [4], as well as other developments in 
gravitational theory, and has inspired some interesting experiments [5]. 
This principle still serves as a guide for some physicists who attempt to 
reformulate (‘Machianize’) Newtonian dynamics [6, 7], or try to construct 
new theories of mechanics [8]. Some arguments against and critiques of 
Mach’s principle have also been raised [9]. Since the time of its original 
appearance [10-12], Mach’s principle has been reformulated in a number 
of different ways [13, 14], For the purpose of this paper, we will focus on 
only one of the consequences of Mach’s principle: that the inertial forces 
can be seen as resulting from real interactions with distant matter in the 
Universe, as was for example shown by Zylbersztajn [15]. 

The only question that remains is: are these forces by themselves 
enough to explain all translational motions that we obsen’e from Earth, 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

and can they reproduce the Tycho Brahe’s model ? The discussion in this 
paper will show that the answer to this question is positive. In order to 
demonstrate it, we will consider the Sun-Earth-Mars system. 

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 an overview of two- 
body problem in the central potential and Kepler’s problem is given. In 
section 3 the calculations of Earth’s and Mars’ trajectories are performed 
in the heliocentric system, both analytically (by applying the results from 
previous section) and numerically. In section 4 the calculations of Sun’s 
and Mars’ trajectories are performed in geocentric system, due to the 
presence of pseudo-potential originating from the fact of accelerated 
motion of the Universe. Finally, the conclusion of the analysis is given. 


2.1 General overview 

We start with the overview of two body problem in Newtonian 
mechanics (for details see e.g. [3] or [4]). The Lagrangian of the system 

L = Vimprl + Vim 2 rf - U(\ r x - r 2 |), (2.1) 

where U is potential energy that depends only on the magnitude of the 
difference of radii vectors (so-called central potential). We can easily 
rewrite this equation in terms of relative position vector r = iq - r 2 , and let 
the origin be at the center of mass, i.e., + m 2 r 2 = 0. Solution of these 

equations are: 

m 2 

m l+ m 2 

r 2 = - 

m 2 

m 1 + m 2 

The Lagrangian (2.1) so becomes 

L = 'A/uir - U{r), 

where r = |r| and p is the reduced mass, 




m 2 

( 2 . 2 ) 



In that manner, the two-body problem is reduced to one body problem of 
particle with coordinate r and mass // in the potential U(r). 

Using polar coordinates, the Lagrangian (3) can be written as: 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

L = V 2 /i(r 2 + r 2 ip 1 ) - U( r) (2.5) 

One can immediately notice that variable (j) is cyclic (it does not appear in 
the Lagrangian explicitly). Consequence of that fact is momentum 
conservation law, since (d/dt) (dL/d</>) = dL/dtj) = 0. Therefore, 

l = = jur 2 (p = const. (2.6) 

is the integral of motion. 

In order to find a solution for the trajectory of a particle, it is not 
necessary to explicitly write down the Euler-Lagrange equations. Instead, 
one can use the energy conservation law, 

E = >/^(f 2 + r 2 p 2 ) + U(r) = 'Apr 2 + ^ + U(r) (2.7) 

Straightforward integration of (2.7) gives the equation for the trajectory, 

<2 - 8) 

2.2 Kepler’s problem 

Let us now consider the particle in the potential 

U(r) = - k - (2.9) 

generally known as Kepler’s problem. Since our primary interest is in the 
planetary motions under the influence of gravity, we will take k > 0. 
Solution of eq. (8) for that potential is [2]: 

^ = 1 + e cos (j), (2.10) 

where 2 p is called the lactus rectum of the orbit, and e is the eccentricity. 
These quantities are given by 

P = 

2f 2 
fife ’ 

( 2 . 11 ) 

Expression (2.10) is the equation of a conic section with one focus in the 
origin. For E < 0 and e < 1 the orbit is an ellipse. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

One can also determine minimal and maximal distances from the 
source of the potential, called perihelion and aphelion, respectively: 

r ■ =— r = -*— (2 12) 

' min \ + q 9 ' max 1 - e '' ’ 1 ^' 

These parameters can be directly observed, and often are used to test a 
model or a theory regarding planetary motions. 


According to Newton’s law of gravity, the force between two massive 
objects reads: 

F = 

Gm 1 m 2 

hi-r 2 | 3 

(**i - r 2 ) 


Which leads to a potential (F = -V U ) 

COG - r 2 |) = 

Cm 1 m 2 

l r i -r 2 | 


This is obviously Kepler’s potential (2.9) with k = Gm ] m 2 , where G is 
Newton’s gravitational constant. 

Since the Sun is more than 5 orders of magnitude more massive than 
Earth and Mars, we will in all future analysis use the approximation 

H~m\ (3.3) 

where m x is mass of the observed planet. For the same reason, gravitational 
interaction between Earth and Mars can be neglected, since it is negligible 
compared with the interaction between Mars and the Sun. Using these 
assumptions, we can write down corresponding Lagrangians, 

L £5 = V2m E rl s + 


L MS =V 2 m M r 2 MS + ^^ (3.4) 

r MS 

where m E and m\ t are masses of Earth and Mars, respectively. Subscripts 
ES (MS) correspond to the motion of Earth (Mars) with respect to the Sun. 
These trajectories can be calculated using the exact solution (2.10) with 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

appropriate strength constants k and initial conditions which determine E 
and i. Another way is to solve the Euler-Lagrange equations numerically, 
using astronomical parameters [20] ( e.g ., aphelion and perihelion of 
Earth/Mars) to choose the initial conditions that fit the observed data. The 
former has been done using Wolfram Mathematica package. The result is 
shown on Fig. 1. 

FIG. 1: Trajectories of Earth and Mars in heliocentric system over the period of 2 
years. Blue and red lines represent Earth’s and Mars’ orbits, respectively. 

For the later comparison, one could write out the expressions for the e 
and p parameters for the Earth. Putting the expressions for energy (2.7) 
and momentum (2.6) into eqs. (2.11) it is straightforward to obtain 

<j> 2 r 4 

P = - 

‘ GM S 

e = 

2GM s <p 2 r 3 - r 2 <j> z r 4 - cf> 4 r 6 

g 2 mI 


where (f >, r and r are angular velocity, radial velocity and distance 
respectively, taken in the same moment of time (e.g. in t = 0). 

Fig. 2 displays motion of the Mars as viewed from the Earth, gained 
by trivial coordinate transfonnation 

r EM(t) = -r Es(t) + r M s(t), 



Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

where r E s (0 and r M s (0 are solutions of Euler-Lagrange equations for the 
Lagrangians (3.4). Equation (3.6) is just the mathematical expression of 
the Tycho Brahe’s claim. The retrograde motion of Mars can be useful in 
the attempt to understand and determine orbital parameters, as was shown 
qualitatively and quantitatively by Thompson [21], 

The acceleration that Earth experiences due to the gravitational force 
of the Sun is usually referred as centripetal acceleration and is given by 

_ F cp _ GMs p 
&cp _ *ES 

m E 


where r is the unit vector in the direction of vector r, r ES (t) is radius vector 
describing motion of Earth around the Sun, and F cp is centripetal force, i.e. 
the force that causes the motion. 

FIG. 2: Trajectory of the Mars as seen from the Earth over the period of 7 years. 
Calculation of this trajectory is done numerically in the heliocentric system. 

4.1 The pseudo-potential 

From the heliocentric perspective, the fact that the Earth moves around 
the Sun results with centrifugal pseudo-force, observed only by the 
observer on the Earth. But if we apply Mach’s principle to the geocentric 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

viewpoint, one is obliged to speak about the real forces resulting from the 
fact that the Universe as a whole moves around the observer on the 
stationary Earth. Although these forces will further be considered as the 
real forces, we well keep the usual terminology and call them pseudo¬ 
forces, for the sake of convenience. Our focus here will be on the annual 
orbits, not on diurnal rotation which requires some additional physical 
assumptions [8] [22] that are beyond the scope of this paper. 

The Universe is regarded as an (N + 1 ^-particle system (N celestial 
bodies plus planet Earth). From the point of a stationary Earth, one can 
write down the Lagrangian that describes the motions of celestial bodies: 

L = V^ =1 m i 

Z N Gm E mj 

i = 1 - U PS^ 

' l 


where r xj = |r, - r, |, U ps stands for pseudo-potential, satisfying F /K = -V U ps . 
F,„ is the pseudo-force given by 

V P s = a cp ,i , (4-2) 

where a cp ,; is centripetal acceleration for given celestial body (with respect 
to the Earth) and m is a mass of the object that is subjected to this force. 
It’s easy to notice that the dominant contribution in these sums comes from 
the Sun. The close objects (planets, moons, etc.) are much less massive 
than the Sun, and massive objects are much farther distant. The same 
approximation is implicitly used in section 3. 

In the Machian picture, the centripetal acceleration is a mere relative 
quantity, describing the rate of change of relative velocity. Therefore, 
centripetal acceleration of the Sun with respect to Earth is given by 
Equation 3.7, with r ES = ~r SE . All that considered, Equation 4.2 becomes 

_ GmM s f 

41 ps - ~2 


where r SE ( t ) describes the motion of the Sun around the Earth. 

We can now finally write down the pseudo-potential which influences 
every body observed by still observer on Earth: 

U ps (r) = —— r SE • r (4.4) 

r SE 

where r(t) describes motion of particle of mass m with respect to the Earth. 
Notice that this is not a central potential. 

4.2 Sun in Earth’s pseudo-potential 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

In order to determine Sun’s orbit in Earth’s pseudo-potential, one 
needs to take the dominant contributions of the Lagrangian (4.1), as was 
explained earlier. Taking into account the expression for pseudo-potential 
given in Equation 4.4, one ends up with 

L SF ='AM s r 2 SE ^ (4.5) 

r SE 

This Lagrangian has the exact same form as the reduced Lagrangian (2.3). 
That means that we can immediately determine the orbit by means of 
Equation (2.11) by substituting // = M s and k = GM$. This leads to the 
following result (subscript SE will be omitted): 

0 2 r 4 
P ~ - 

' GM S 

. 2GM s d> 2 r 3 -f 2 d> 2 r 4: - <h 4 r 6 .. „ 

1 -- (4 ‘ 6) 

which is the exact equivalent of the previous result given in Equations 
(3.5), since 0, f and r are relative quantities, by definition equivalent in 
both models. We can therefore conclude that the Sun’s orbit in the Earth’s 
pseudo-potential is equivalent as one observed from the Earth in the 
heliocentric system. It remains to show the same thing for Mars’ orbit. 

4.3 Mars in Earth’s pseudo-potential 

In the similar way as before, we take dominant contributions of 
Lagrangian (4.1) together with Equation (4.4) and form the following 

LmE ~ l / 2m M^ME 

Gmj/iMs GthmM $ 

I r M£~ r Sfil 

r SE ' r ME 


where subscript ME refers to the motion of Mars with respect to Earth, and 
r s -£-(t) is solution of the Euler-Lagrange equations for the Lagrangian (4.5). 

The Euler-Lagrange equations for r ME (t ) Lagrangian (4.7) are too 
complicated to be solved analytically, but can easily be solved 
numerically. The numerical solutions for equations of motion for both the 
Sun and Mars are displayed in Fig. 3. The equivalence of trajectories 
gained in two different ways is obvious, justifying the model proposed by 
Tycho Brahe. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

-10 12 
_ Astronomical units _ 

FIG. 3: Trajectories of the Sun (dark, blue) and the Mars (light, red) moving in 
Earth’s pseudo-potential over the period of 7 years. Calculation of this trajectory is 
performed numerically in the geocentric system. 


The analysis of planetary motions has been performed in the 
Newtonian framework with the assumption of Mach’s principle. The 
kinematical equivalence of the Copemican (heliocentric) and the Neo- 
tychonian (geocentric) systems is shown to be a consequence of the 
presence of pseudo-potential (4.4) in the geocentric system, which, 
according to Mach, must be regarded as the real potential originating from 
the fact of the simultaneous acceleration of the Universe. This analysis can 
be done on any other celestial body observed from the Earth. Since Sun 
and Mars are chosen arbitrarily, and there is nothing special about Mars, 
one can expect to come up with the same general conclusion. There is 
another interesting remark that follows from this analysis. If one could put 
the whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the pseudo¬ 
potential corresponding to pseudo-force (4.2) will immediately be 
generated. That same pseudo-potential then causes the Universe to stay in 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

that very state of motion, without any need of exterior forces acting on 
it. 259 

Wkat about the Milhy Way? 

Some might object that in calculating gravitational attraction, the stars 
are too far away to have any effect on our solar system. For the sake of 
argument, let’s assume that most of the stars in the universe do not affect 

259 [1] Koestler A 1959 The Sleepwalkers: A History> of Man’s Changing 
Vision of the Universe (London: Flutchinson) pp 194-5; [2] Rawlins D 
1987 “Ancient heliocentrists, Ptolemy, and the equant” Am. J. Phys. 55 
235-9; [3] Rosen J 1981 “Extended Mach principle” Am. J. Phys. 49 258- 
64; [4] Newburgh R 2007 “Inertial forces, absolute space, and Mach’s 
principle: the genesis of relativity” Am. J. Phys. 75 427-30; [5] 
Lichtenegger H and Mashhoon B 2004 “Mach’s principle” 
arXiv:physics/0407078 [physics.hist-ph]; [6] Hood C G 1970 “A 
reformulation of Newtonian dynamics” Am. J. Phys. 38 438-42; [7] 
Barbour J 1974 “Relative-distance Machian theories” Nature 249 328; [8] 
Assis A K T 1999 Relational Mechanics (Montreal: Aperion); [9] Hartman 
H I and Nissim-Sabat C 2003 “On Mach’s critique of Newton and 
Copernicus” Am. J. Phys. 71 1163-8; [10] Mach E 1872 Die Geschichte 
und die Wurzel des Satzes von der Erhaltung der Arbeit (Prague: Calve); 
[11] Mach E 1883 Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung Historisch— 
Kritisch Dargestellt (Leipzig: Brockhaus); [12] Mach E 1911 History> and 
Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy> (Chicago, IL: Open 
Court); [13] Rovelli C 2004 Quantum Gravity (Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press) p 75; [14] Barbour J 2010 “The definition of Mach’s 
principle” arXiv: 1007.3368 [gr-qc]; [15] Zylbersztajn A 1994 “Newton’s 
absolute space, Mach’s principle and the possible reality of fictitious 
forces” Eur. J. Phys. 15 1-8; [16] Hauser W 1985 “On planetary motion” 
Am. J. Phys. 53 905-7; [17] Gauthier N 1986 “Planetary orbits” Am. J. 
Phys. 54 203; [18] Landau L D and Lifshiz E M 1976 Mechanics 3rd edn 
(Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann) pp 25-40; [19] Goldstein H 1980 
Classical Mechanics 2nd edn (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley) pp 70- 
102; [20] Weast R C (ed) 1968 Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 49th 
edn (Cleveland, OH: Chemical Rubber Company) pp FI45-6; [21] 
Thompson B G 2005 “Using retrograde motion to understand and 
determine orbital parameters” Am. J. Phys. 73 1023-9; [22] Veto B 2011 
“Gravitomagnetic field of the universe and Coriolis force on the rotating 
Earth” Eur. J. Phys. 32 1323-9. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

our solar system. But let’s also say, (a) in accord with the heliocentric 
theory that the Milky Way’s gravity affects the sun and requires the sun to 
revolve around the Milky Way, and (b) that we consider only the stars in 
the Milky Way as having any negligible effect on our sun/earth system. In 
that case, the geocentric system is still viable in one of two ways. As such, 
the rotation of the Milky Way around a fixed Earth would be situated in 
such a way that it counterbalances the gravity of the sun so that the Earth 
will remain the center of mass for the whole system. The Milky Way 
would be revolving with the rest of the universe around the Earth and thus 
there would be no issue about the forces involved. The universe of 
galaxies will have the effect on the Milky Way such that it will be situated 
within the universe of galaxies so that the center of mass for the whole 
system is the Earth which sits on one of the arms of the Milky Way. In 
turn, since the Milky Way and the sun are revolving around the Earth, the 
Milky Way will create a constant gravitational pull on the sun and keep it 
at the appropriate distance away from the Earth. 

However, the Milky Way, and the rest of the stars in the universe, 
revolve a little faster around the Earth than the sun does. The sun lags 
behind by about four minutes per day. Hence, the gravitational force 
between the Milky Way and the sun will change from day to day since 
different stars will be pulling on the sun. This change would affect the 
Earth being the center of mass except for the fact that a change in the 
distance between the sun and the Earth will serve to compensate for the 
change of distance between the sun and various stars of the Milky Way. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Thus the sun will be 91 million miles from Earth at the perihelion and 94 
million miles at the aphelion. Some might object that the center of mass 
for the Milky Way is at or near the center of the Milky Way. This presents 
no problem to geocentrism since it can operate with more than one center 
of mass, that is, with local centers of mass and one universal center of 
mass. Some might object that, although it may be true that the Earth can 
serve as a barycenter, we do not see any cases in the rest of the cosmos of 
a larger object revolving around a smaller object. But this is precisely what 
we would expect in a geocentric universe. The reason we do not see any 
such phenomena is that there is only one special place where the larger 
will revolve around the smaller - at the barycenter of the universe. 

Finally, being a spiral galaxy, the Milky Way has a corotation circle 
between the disc and the spiral pattern. It just so happens that the Earth is 
very near the corotation circle. 260 This means the Earth is nestled within a 
spiral arm and that the spiral arm will not move against it. 

Lagfrang’ian Points 

In conjunction with the preceeding, the Lagrange points of the 
heliocentric and geocentric systems will be proportionately the same. 

Figure 1: For the Earth revolving around the sun (the thick circle going through 
Lagrange points L3, L4 and L5), there are five major Lagrange points. 

Figure 2: For the sun revolving around the Earth (represented by the thick circle 
going through Lagrange points L4 and L5), and second point, which we will call 
L6, would be on the right side of the diagram and an equal length from Earth as 
L3 is from Earth. 

260 Mishurov, Yu. N., I. A. Zenina, “Yes, the Sun is Located Near the Coronation 
Circle,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, 341:81, 1999, p. 85. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Objection #2: Doesn’t Stellar Parallax 
Prove the Earth is Moving’? 

Historically speaking, if we could point to one cosmological 
phenomenon that has been consistently advocated as the vindicator of 
heliocentrism, it is stellar parallax. Science books by the hundreds have 
declared that Friedrich Bessel finally discovered heliocentrism’s long- 
awaited proof when in 1838 he observed a slight shift in the position of a 
nearby star (Cygnus) against the background of a more distant star. 

Copernican astronomers continue to praise Bessel, but invariably they 
do so without either the slightest indication that parallax does not prove 
heliocentrism, or any admission that there is a perfectly good alternative 
which allows one to interpret parallax from a geocentric perspective. 

To understand how parallax is formed, place a finger from your right 
hand at arms length and align it with a finger from your left hand at half an 
arm’s length, both in front or your face. Observe your fingers first with 
your right eye open, and then with your left eye open. As you switch from 
one eye to the other, the nearer finger will appear to shift to the right. 

In the heliocentric system, parallax is said to occur when, on one side 
of the Earth’s orbit, say January 1, two stars are viewed at the same time in 
a telescope, one star near us and the other star far away (at least by 
conventional means to measure star distances). Let’s say that the two stars 
we view on January 1 are aligned vertically in the same plane, that is, one 
star is at a higher position in our telescope lens than the other but both are 
on the same vertical line. Six months pass and we look at the same two 
stars on July 1. If parallax is demonstrated, we will see that the stars are 
not in a vertical alignment any longer. Assuming the Earth has orbited in a 
counterclockwise direction, the nearer star appears to have shifted to the 
right. This is due to the fact that, in the interval of six months, one has 
looked at the two stars from two separate locations that are 186 million 
miles apart (the diameter of the Earth’s orbit). Since stellar parallax can 
now be detected among a select few stars, most astronomers predisposed 
to accepting the Copernican worldview interpret the phenomenon as proof 
for the Earth’s movement around the sun. 

What most people don’t know (and what most scientists keep from 
them) is that in the geocentric system the same optical phenomenon can be 
demonstrated. In the geocentric system, the stars are centered on the sun, 
(which is also true in the heliocentric system). The only difference, of 
course, is that in the geocentric system the Earth is fixed in space while 
both the sun and stars revolve around the Earth. Once again, on January 1, 
the two stars from our above example are in vertical alignment. When we 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

look at these same two stars again on July 1, the nearer star will appear to 
have shifted to the right of the farther star, and it will do so at the same 
precise angle as in the heliocentric model. 

Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel: 1784 -1846 

The equivalence of geocentric parallax and heliocentric parallax is 
nothing out of the ordinary. Based on geometrical reciprocity, the two 
systems must be equal on all counts. The only difference is that in the 
heliocentric model the Earth is moving and the stars are fixed, while in the 
geocentric model the Earth is fixed and the stars are moving. Everything 
else is exactly the same. What is out of the ordinary, however, is that the 
natural equivalence between the two systems has been systematically 
suppressed out of virtually every science book written since the days of 
Newton, yet it is as simple and natural as the symmetry between one’s 
right hand and left hand. Simply put, parallax does not prove 
heliocentrism. Rather, history shows that the phenomenon of parallax only 
proves there has been a rush to judgment in favor of heliocentrism that was 
based on nothing more than preference, not scientific fact. 

One stumbling block toward understanding the equivalence between 
the heliocentric and geocentric concepts of parallax is that the original 
model of geocentrism advocated by Tycho Brahe did not have the stars 
centered on the sun; they were centered on the Earth. That being the case, 
no parallax would be forthcoming, at least based on the above mechanics 
and geometric proportions. That is, the stars would be in the same vertical 
alignment when one looked at them six months apart. Perhaps no one in 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Bessel’s day (circa 1838) realized that the only thing required to bring the 
geocentric model into conformity with the results of heliocentric model 
was to shift the center of the stars from the Earth to the sun. Consequently, 
the geocentric model that had the stars centered on the sun never gained its 
rightful place in the halls of astronomy. Tycho Brahe had not presented 
such a model because in his day (1546-1601) no one had yet discovered a 
stellar parallax (laying aside the claims of Giovanni Pieroni cited earlier), 
and, in fact, this lacuna in the astronomical evidence was one of the 
arguments Tycho used to discredit heliocentrism. As it stands now, 
however, unless some astronomical proof is forthcoming that demonstrates 
that the stars are not centered on the sun (which is virtually impossible to 
do based on observation), then geocentrism has the same mechanical 
answer to the phenomenon of parallax as the heliocentric model. All that is 
needed is a slight modification to the original Tychonic model, which most 
geocentrists know as the modified Tychonic or neo-Tychonic model. 

The neo-Tychonic model has been known to astronomy for some time 
and is still mentioned in some circles. At the department of physics at the 
University of Illinois, one class lecture states: 

It is often said that Tycho’s model implies the absence of 
parallax, and that Copernicus’ requires parallax. However, it 
would not be a major conceptual change to have the stars orbit 
the sun (like the planets) for Tycho, which would give the same 
yearly shifts in their apparent positions as parallax gives. Thus if 
parallax were observed, a flexible Tychonean could adjust the 
theory to account for it, without undue complexity. What if 
parallax were not observed? For Copernicus, one only requires 
that the stars be far enough away for the parallax to be 
unmeasurable. Therefore the presence or absence of parallax 
doesn’t force the choice of one type of model over the other. If 
different stars were to show different amounts of parallax, that 
would rule out the possibility of them all being on one sphere, 
but still not really decide between Tycho and Copernicus. 261 

In fact, if we don’t worry about the distant stars, these two 
models describe identical relative motions of all the objects in 
the solar system. So the role of observation is not as direct as you 
might have guessed. There is no bare observation that can 

261 University of Illinois, Physics 319, Spring 2004, Lecture 03, p. 8. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

distinguish whether Tycho (taken broadly) or Copernicus (taken 
broadly) is right. 262 

Snapshots of animations compare heliocentric and geocentric parallaxes. 

Figure 1: The heliocentric parallax is on the left, the geocentric on the right. In 
the heliocentric model, the Earth is at the 11:00 o'clock position and is moving 
counterclockwise. In the geocentric model, the sun is at the 5:00 o'clock position 
and moving counterclockwise with the stars. The white lines converge at Earth 
and form the parallax angle. Notice that in both models the parallax angle is the 
same. At the top of the box is the "View from Earth." Each box has the same 
view, showing the equivalence of the heliocentric and geocentric models. 263 

Figure 2: Heliocentric model has Earth at the 9:00 o'clock position while the geocentric 
model has the sun at 3:00 o'clock. The parallax angle is the same in both models. 

262 University of Illinois, Physics 319, ibid. 

263 See CDROM for animations of the geocentric and heliocentric versions of 
stellar parallax. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Figure 3: Three-dimensional perspective of heliocentric stellar parallax. Earth is 
revolving around the sun and viewing three different stars at three different 
latitudes. (See CDrom for the animation). 

Figure 4: Three-dimensional perspective of geocentric parallax. Sun and star field 
are revolving around Earth where three different stars are viewed from three 
different latitudes. (See CDrom for the animation). 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Stellar parallax in tke Neo-Tychonian planetary system 264 

The recent paper published in European Journal of Physics [1] aimed 
to demonstrate the kinematical and dynamical equivalence of heliocentric 
and geocentric systems. The work is performed in the Neo-Tychonian 
system, with key assumption that orbits of distant masses around the Earth 
are synchronized with the Sun’s orbit. Motion of Sun and Mars have been 
analyzed, and the conclusion was reached that the very fact of the 
accelerated motion of the Universe as a whole produces the so-called 
“pseudo-potential” that not only explains the origin of the pseudo-forces, 
but also the very motion of the celestial bodies as seen from the static 
Earth. After the paper was published, the question was raised if that same 
potential can explain the motion of the distant stars that are not affected by 
the Sun’s gravity (unlike Mars), and if it can be used to reproduce the 
observation of the stellar parallax. The answer is found to be positive. 

Figure 1. Illustrations of the stellar parallax in the heliocentric (left pannel) versus 
geocentric (right pannel) frames of reference. 

1. Introduction 

The well-known effect of stellar parallax can be explained in two 
ways. The first and most common one is in the heliocentric system, in 
which the Sun and the observed stars are approximately considered to be at 
rest. While the Earth moves around the Sun, its position relative to the 
stars changes, which results with the effect of motion of the near stars [2]. 
The parallax is observed using the more distant stars in the background. 

The second way to explain stellar parallax is by saying that the 
apparent movement of the stars is in fact the real motion in the pseudo- 

264 L. Popov, University of Zagreb, Dept, of Physics, BijenTcka cesta 32, Zagreb, 
Croatia; arXiv:1302.7129vl [physics.class-ph] 28 Feb 2013; Submitted to: Eur. J. 
Phys; PACS numbers: 45.50.Pk, 96.15.De, 45.20.D-. Used by permission. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

potential that is, according to Mach’s principle [3], generated by the very 
fact of the simultaneous accelerated motion of all the bodies in the 
Universe, including the distant stars. 

The comparison between two approaches is given in the Figure 1, 
with the appropriate choice of coordinate axes that will be used in the 
calculation which follows. 

2. Motion of Proxima Centauri in the Earth’s pseudo-potential 

Now in order to demonstrate how one can arrive to the correct 
prediction of the stellar parallax in the Neo-Tychonian system, we will 
calculate the trajectory of the star Proxima Centauri in the pseudo-potential 
given by Eq (4.4) in [1, 4], 

( 2 . 1 ) 


Flere G stands for Newton’s constant, MS stands for the mass of the 
Sun and r S£ (t) describes the motion of the Sun in the Earth’s pseudo¬ 
potential and was calculated in [1], 

The Lagrangian that describes the motion of the Proxima Centauri in 
the Earth’s pseudo-potential is therefore given by (gravitational interaction 
between the star and the Sun is, of course, neglected): 

( 2 . 2 ) 


- 1.5 


Figure 2. Left, pannel displays the result of the numerical solutions for equations of 
motion derived from the Lagrangian (12.21) over the period of 1 year. It represents the 
trajectory of the star in the x-y plane, as seen from the Earth. Right pannel illustrates 
the stellar parallax effect, in consistence with the numerical results. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

where m is the mass of the star, and r(t) describes its motion. The 
equations of motions are mass-independent, as expected. 

The Euler-Lagrange equations for this Lagrangian are solved 
numerically in the Cartesian coordinate system, using Wolfram 
Mathematica package. The numerical solutions over the period of 1 year 
are presented in the Fig 2. 

Stellar parallax can now be geometrically calculated: 

arctan 0 = p —— (2.3) 

where D = 4.24 light years is the well-known distance of Proxima Centauri 
from the Earth [5]. Using the numerical results obtained above, one can 
evaluate the expression (2.3). The result is 

9 = 3.705 x 1(T 6 rad = 0.76” , (2.4) 

which is perfectly consistent with the astronomical data [6]. 

3. Conclusion 

We have analyzed the motion of the star Proxima Centauri in the 
Earth’s pseudo-potential previously derived from Mach’s principle [1]. 
The obtained results are in accord with the observed data. The kinematical 
and dynamical equivalence of Neo-Tychonian and Copemican systems has 
once again been demonstrated. 265 

265 References: [1] Popov L 2013 Newtonian-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian 
model of planetary motions Eur. J. Phys. 34 383 (Preprint arXiv:1301.6045v2); 
[2] Ostlie D A and Carrol B W 2007 An Introduction to Modem Stellar 
Astrophysics 2nd ed (San Francisco: Addison Wesley) pp 57-59; [3] Barbour J 
2010 The definition of Mach’s principle arXiv: 1007.3368 [gr-qc]; [4] Popov L 
2013 Corrigendum to “Newtonian-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of 
planetary motions” (in press); [5] Wikipedia 28 Feb 2013 Proxima Centauri; [6] Benedict G F et al 1999 
Astron. J. 118 1086. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 
But Isn't Tli ere a Daily Parallax in the Geocentric System? 

We can see from the previous illustrations that on an annual basis the 
heliocentric and geocentric systems would produce the same stellar 
parallax. But let’s say someone raises the objection that in the heliocentric 
system parallax is caused by a semi-annual, 186 million mile difference in 
the Earth’s position in its revolution around the sun, but in the geocentric 
system the 186 million mile difference occurs every day since the sun and 
stars revolve around the Earth on a daily basis. Since such is the case, 
should not the geocentric system show the same stellar parallax every day 
that it also shows in six months? The answer is no. Both systems will show 
the same annual and daily parallax. Moreover, the daily motions of both 
the geocentric and heliocentric systems will not be measurable parallax. 
We can arrive at this answer by further investigating the previous 
animations of annual parallax. 

First, the annual parallax animation of the geocentric system does not 
show the daily revolution of the stars around the sun. Rather, the animation 
shows only a “snapshot” of the position of the sun and stars at a certain 
hour and minute each day. If we add up these daily snapshots for six 
months, it will be the same as that which we display in the annual parallax 
animation. In actuality, the sun is not really needed in the animation, since 
it serves only as the reference point around which the stars are centered. 
We remind ourselves here that stellar parallax is caused by the stars being 
centered on a point in space that is 1 AU distance from the Earth. The sun 
just happens to occupy that 1 AU point. 

Second, the annual parallax animation does not show the movement 
of the sun against the stars for both the heliocentric or geocentric systems. 
The reason is that this particular movement is insignificant enough that it 
can be ignored for purposes of illustrating annual parallax. In reality, in the 
geocentric system the stars complete their daily revolution around the sun 
in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds (23:56:04), while the sun completes 
its daily revolution around the fixed Earth in exactly 24 hours. Likewise, in 
the heliocentric system, the Earth rotates daily with respect to a fixed star 
in the same 23:56:04 time. 266 So in both systems there is a difference 

266 A sidereal day is the time required for one complete rotation of the star field 
around a fixed Earth (or, in the heliocentric system, one complete rotation of the 
Earth with respect to a fixed star), which equals 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.09 
seconds of solar time. A sidereal year is the time required for one complete 
revolution of the sun through the star field (or, in the heliocentric system, one 
complete revolution of the Earth around the Sun with respect to a fixed star), 
which is 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, 9.54 seconds of solar time. A sidereal 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

between the sidereal (star) time and the solar (sun) time by 3 minutes and 
56 seconds. Thus, the sun lags behind the stars by about four minutes per 
day, and we observe this difference as we see the sun go through the 
twelve constellations of the Zodiac each year. If we were to make the 
annual parallax animation completely accurate, it would show the sun 
lagging behind by almost a degree per day. But this would make no 
difference in the parallax we see, since parallax is determined by the 
angular positions of two stars, that is, one star closer to us and one farther 
away being observed from different angles. 

We will use a different perspective when we are discussing daily 
movement as opposed to annual movement. As noted above, in the daily 
movement of the geocentric system, the stars revolve around the sun every 
23:56:04, and the sun revolves around the Earth every 24:00:00. Because 
of this slight difference, the viewing angle of the stars that we have on 
Earth does, indeed, change every day, but it is so very, very slight that we 
simply cannot notice any change when we view two stars on any two 
successive nights. Even the most powerful telescopes set at the farthest 
reaches of the Earth would not be able to detect any parallax on a daily 
basis. Essentially, the parallax from one day to the next is only 1/182.5 th of 
the parallax we will see over a six month period (since there are 182.5 
days in six months). Parallaxes over six months are difficult enough to see, 
much less those which are 1/182.5 th of a six-month size. We know daily 
parallax exists only in theory. 

The heliocentric system has the same small amount of parallax on a 
daily basis. By the time the Earth rotates in one day and a second night sky 
appears, the Earth has moved 1/182.5 th of its semi-annual annual orbit, and 
thus the viewing angle for two stars (one star closer to Earth and the other 
farther away) has changed and will cause a very slight parallax - the same 
parallax that appears in the geocentric system. But since the parallax is so 
small, we have no instruments that can detect it. Again, we know it only in 

Below are two geocentric and two heliocentric snapshots of the daily 
movement of the sun and stars with respect to the Earth. The angle of 
viewing the stars from Earth does not change appreciably during the time 
period from 6:00 pm to 11:00 pm to cause any measurable parallax. 267 

See next page 

month is the average period of revolution of the Moon around the Earth with 
respect to a fixed star, equal to 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes of solar time. 

267 See the CDROM for the animation of daily parallax. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Geocentric Daily Parallax 

Heliocentric Daily Parallax 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Objection #3: Doesn’t Stell ar Aberration Prove the 
Ear tb is Revolving Around tbe Sun? 

Stellar aberration has long been held as a proof for heliocentrism. The 
proof is even implied in the name given to the phenomenon, since it 
purports to be an “aberration” of star light due to the assumed motion of 
the Earth around the sun. It was first discovered by James Bradley in 1725 
when he was actually looking for stellar parallax. The main question that 
needs to be answered is: is stellar aberration due to the Earth moving, the 
star moving, or something between them moving? 

Tbe Heliocentric Explanation 

In stellar aberration we observe the stars moving very slightly around 
their general location over the course of a year. The precise path of the 
movement will depend on where the star is in relation to the latitude from 
which they are observed on Earth. For example, if one looks along the 
north celestial pole (i.e., the extension of the North Pole into outer space) 


o o 


o o 


Movements of stars over the course 
of a year as viewed from Earth 

and plots the position of the stars in that vicinity over a year’s time, he will 
see the stars revolve in a circle. In 1725, James Bradley observed the 
movements of a number of stars, but particularly Gamma Draconis, which 
is very close to the North Star, Polaris. The chart at right shows the 
“constant of aberration” from Bradley’s many observations of various 
stars. In this particular chart, Gamma Draconis shows an aberration of 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

20.1825 arc seconds. 268 If one observes the stars at a 45° celestial latitude, 
he will see each of the stars form ellipses over a year’s period. The 
eccentricity of the ellipse will increase the greater one’s distance from the 
North Pole. If one observes from the equatorial plane, one will see the 
stars form an acute hyperbola or even a horizontal line. 


The observations of many of the stare are manifestly so discordant, that it 
would be uninteresting to inquire into their separate results. The stars possess¬ 
ing the greatest weight are the following: 

a Aurigffi, a Persei, i? Ureae maj., 7 Draconis, 35 Camelopard!, t Persei, 7 Per- 
sei, 0 Draconis, Aurigse, £ Urea; maj., t Ursa: maj. 

The results of which are given in the following table: 

Name* «r Sun. 



CoelSclent of 

c«. R. 

Klin Emm, 

+ 0.052852 


+ 9.4515 


a Persei 

+ 0.087876 

+ 0.012225 



7 Urea maj. 

+ 0.083962 

+ 0 00X582 



y Draconis 

+ 0.056265 




35 Camelopardi 

+ 0.008? 18 




r Persei 

+ 0.072308 




y _ 





p Draconis 





3 Auriga 


+ 0.O8O673 



( Ursa maj. 




0.2 HO 

r - 





In determining the Aberration, individual stare agree better; and it is only 
\J, Urea; mty., 9 Aurigre, X Cassiopese, which possess so little weight as to render it 
uninteresting to adduce their separate results. The rest give as follows: 

Nun of Sun. 

CootUal of 

Mru Emm. 

a Auriga 



± 0 . 2/02 

1 Herculis 




8 Persei 

+ 0.032531 



a _ 




46 Auriga 




7 Ursa maj. 

+ 0.008027 



y Draconis 




35 Camelopardi 


19 9635 


r Persei 

+ 0.020213 



y — — ■ 




$ Draconis 

+ 0.018826 



8 Auriga 




a Cassiope* 




y Urea maj. 




f - 




£ Draconis 

+ 0.034394 



18 Camelopardi 




1 Tin*** rnnj 

— 0.03360S 



8 Caesiopea 




8 Urea maj. 




James Bradley's chart showing stellar aberrations 

This phenomenon occurs for each star in the sky, without exception. It 
does not matter how far or how close the star is from Earth. Moreover, it 
will occur in both the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, 

268 Taken from Reduction of the Observations Made by Bradley at Kew and 
Wansted to Determine the Quantities of Aberration and Nutation, Dr. Busch, 
Assistant Astronomer at the Royal Observatory of Konigsberg, Oxford University 
Press, 1838. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

and in the same shapes and proportions. Additionally, the sun and the 
planets will show the same aberration, approximately 20.5 arc seconds. 
The only body exempt is the Earth’s moon. So the natural question is: 
what is causing the light of these celestial bodies to create these shapes and 
why is the moon exempt? 

Normally, light is aberrated by the medium through which it travels, 
just as a pencil placed in a glass of water appears crooked due to the fact 
that the light waves are bent by the water. Hence, the first question 
regarding aberration is whether a medium in space is bending the star 
light. Heliocentrists have argued that there is no medium in space (i.e., 
space is a vacuum) and thus the star light cannot be aberrated by a 
medium. At this stage in the discussion, we will accept this stipulation for 
the sake of argument. 

If space is a vacuum, the cause for the aberration must then be from 
either: (a) the source, (b) the receiver or (c) the light itself. Of the three, 
modem heliocentrism believes that the star is fixed and the Earth is 
moving, thus it discounts any arguments claiming that the source (i.e., the 
star) causes the aberration. This leaves either (b) the receiver (Earth) or (c) 
the light itself as the cause. Of the two possibilities, modem heliocentrism 
argues that the receiver, depending on its speed, determines when and how 
the star light is observed. That is, the faster the receiver is moving, the 
more the star light will be aberrated. 

This particular explanation works in tandem with the speed of light. 
Light travels at 186,000 mps, but in the heliocentric system the earth is 
moving at 19 mps around the sun, hence the star light will be aberrated in 
proportion to the ratio of the speed of light and the speed of Earth. This is 
solved by taking the arc tangent of 19/186,000, which is 0.0057 degrees. 
Hence the light will be aberrated over the course of a year by 0.0057 
degrees or about 20.5 seconds of arc. A second of arc is 1/1,296,000 of a 
section of sky. In other words, the circle, ellipse or horizontal line caused 
by stellar aberration will be about 20.5 arc seconds wide or cover a 
20.5/1,296,000 patch of the 360° night sky. 269 That is indeed very small but 
the effect is quite noticeable with the right equipment. 

A common analogy employed to describe the effect is walking in the 
rain carrying a stove pipe. If one desires to have as many rain drops as 
possible go through without hitting the inside walls of the stove pipe, one 
will need to tilt the stove pipe forward at bit. 

269 There are 360 degrees in a circle, but 60 minutes for every degree, and 60 
seconds for every minute, thus equaling 1,296,000 seconds in 360 degrees. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 




Telescope Stationary 

on Moving Earth 

The same principle is said to apply to viewing a star. Since the Earth is 
moving at 19 mps and is either advancing toward, receding from, or 
moving laterally in relation to the star, the telescope must be tilted to catch 
the star’s light so that the light does not hit the wall of the telescope. The 
star light is always coming to Earth at the same angle, but since the Earth 
is moving against the star light, the telescope must be slightly tilted to 
compensate for the Earth’s movement. 

Figure 1: In the above image, the Earth, moving counterclockwise, has 
passed in front of the sun. The three positions of aberration: the circle 
at the North Pole; the ellipse at 452 latitude, and the horizontal line at 
the equator are represented in white. The rods represent how the 
star's position is viewed from Earth. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Figure 2: The Earth has now revolved in a third of its annual orbit. The 
red lines representing how the star is viewed from Earth are now on 
the far left side of the circle, the ellipse and the horizontal line. 

Figure 3: The Earth is now two-thirds through its annual orbit. Notice 
at 452 the red line is at the bottom half of the ellipse and is moving left 
to right. 

270 See CDROM for animations of the geocentric and heliocentric versions of 
stellar aberration. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 
Aberration o f the Sun 

Modern heliocentrism has a different explanation for why the sun 
shows aberration, however. The following is from Wikipedia: 

A special case of annual aberration is the nearly constant 
deflection of the Sun from its true position by k towards the west 
(as viewed from Earth), opposite to the apparent motion of the 
Sun along the ecliptic (which is from west to east, as seen from 
Earth). The deflection thus makes the Sun appear to be behind 
(or retarded) from its actual position on the ecliptic by a position 
or angle k [20.49552"]. This constant deflection is often 
explained as due to the motion of the Earth during the 8.3 
minutes that it takes light to travel from the Sun to Earth. This is 
a valid explanation provided it is given in the Earth’s reference 
frame (where it becomes purely a light-time correction for the 
position of the eastward-moving Sun as seen from a stationary 
Earth), whereas in the Sun’s reference frame the same 
phenomenon must be described as aberration of light when seen 
by the westward-moving Earth, which involves having Earth’s 
telescopes pointed “forward” (westward, in a direction toward 
the Earth’s motion relative to the Sun) by a slight amount. Since 
this is the same physical phenomenon, simply described from 
two different reference frames, it is not a coincidence that the 
angle of annual aberration of the Sun is equal to the path swept 
by the Sun along the ecliptic, in the time it takes for light to 
travel from it to the Earth (8.316746 minutes divided by one 
sidereal year (365.25636 days) is 20.49265", very nearly k 
[ 20.49552]). Similarly, one could explain the Sun’s apparent 
motion over the background of fixed stars as a (very large) 
parallax effect. 271 

Although the wording is somewhat obtuse, the author’s statement that 
8.3 minutes is to be divided by 365.25 days means that during the time it 
takes light from the sun to travel to the Earth (8.3 minutes), the Earth has 
moved ahead in its orbit by 20.49265 arc seconds, but he also agrees that 
the frame of reference can be reversed to say that the sun moved by 
20.49265" along the ecliptic while the Earth remained fixed. In either case, 
however, the author fails to note that the result is only a coincidence and 
not an explanation of aberration. As such he has two different explanations 

271 Explanation posted as of Dec. 2011. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

for the 20.5" difference in the sun’s position. The first is formulated from 
the “Earth’s frame of reference” and is not understood as an aberration but 
only a “light-time correlation.” The second is formulated from the “sun’s 
frame of reference.. .when seen by the westward moving Earth” and is said 
to be an actual aberration. 

Whatever the true state of affairs for the heliocentric side, the dual 
explanation from different “frames of reference” will lend itself to 
establishing the geocentric explanation, which will offer a more cogent 
reason why the sun takes part in annual aberration. Moreover, the 
heliocentric argument will show itself not to have an explanation for why 
the planets show aberration and why the moon does not. 

Tke Geocentric Explanation 

The geocentric explanation for stellar aberration is very simple, and 
the simplicity speaks for itself. In reality, there is no aberration of star 
light. Rather, what appears as aberrated star light on Earth is caused by a 
movement of the whole star field around a fixed Earth. Essentially, the 
cause for stellar aberration is the same as stellar parallax - the stars are 
aligned with the sun and thus revolve with the sun around the Earth each 

Figure 1: The sun and stars revolve around the Earth on a 1AU 
(astronomical unit) pivot. The only separation of the sun from the 
stars is that the sun lags behind by 3 minutes and 4 seconds. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Consequently, stellar aberration is not caused by a bending of the 
star’s light, but by the revolution of all the stars around the Earth, which, 
depending on the latitude of the star with respect to the Earth’s equator, 
makes the starlight appear as a circular or elliptical annual motion on 
Earth. The star field rotates around the Earth on the north/south celestial 
pole, but the pole itself revolves with a 20.5 arc second radius. As viewed 
from Earth, the motion of the stars on or near the celestial pole will form a 
circle in the north, an ellipse at 45° latitude and a hyperbola at the equator. 

Figure 2: As seen from Earth, each star in the sky makes 
an annual movement. 

It is noteworthy that James Bradley, as noted by Godfray, “when 
discussing his observations after the discovery of aberration, found that the 
changes of declination of the stars could not all be accounted for by 
precession and aberration alone...found an intimate connection between 
these oscillations of the earth’s axis, to which he gave the name of 
Nutation.” 272 Precession and nutation are caused by either an outside 
torque, the influence of gravity and/or an imbalance in mass distribution. 
In the geocentric system, as the universe rotates 365 times a year around 
the Earth, it will precess and nutate by 0.112 arc seconds per day, which 
will cause all the stars to move over the course of the year. Observe the 
following slides: 

272 Hugh Godfray, A Treatise on Astronomy, Cambridge, MacMillan, 1866, p. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Figure 1: In the above image, the star field (represented by the 
spherical grid and the three stars) is precessing/nutating around the 
Earth, left to right. The three positions of aberration: the circle at the 
North Pole; the ellipse at 452 latitude; and the horizontal line at the 
equator, are represented in white. The red rods represent how the 
star light is viewed from Earth. Notice at 452 the red line is at the top 
half of the ellipse and is moving right to left. 

Figure 2: The stars have now precessed/nutated one-third of their 
motion. The red lines representing the star light are now on the top 
side of the circle, the ellipse and the horizontal line, and moving right 
to left. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Figure 3: The stars have now precessed/nutated two-thirds of their 
motion. The red lines representing the star light are now on the 
bottom side of the circle, the ellipse and the horizontal line, and are 
moving left to right. 

Tke Speed of Li g'li L 

There is one other factor to consider - the speed of light and the 
difference between the source and the receiver of the star light. Modern 
heliocentrism believes: (a) star light is independent from the star once it is 
emitted from the star, and (b) the emitted star light is not independent of 
the motion of the receiver. The geocentric explanation has incorporated 
both of these heliocentric parameters. In doing so, it has shown that 
whereas the heliocentric explanation requires the phenomenon to be an 
actual aberration of light, the geocentric explanation holds that it is caused 
by a vector radiation of light from the star that is not aberrated but travels 
in a linear direction to the viewer on Earth. In later chapters we will see 
how this result agrees in principle with the results of the experiments 
performed in 1871 by George Biddell Airy. 

Finally, in the geocentric model, the sun and planet’s 20.5" movement 
is caused by their annual traveling with the rest of the star field and thus 
they will react in the same manner as the stars. The moon, however, does 
not show a 20.5" movement since it is locked in place by the gravity of the 
fixed Earth. The heliocentric model has no explanation for these 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Objection #4: Doesn’t tke Foucault Pendulum 
Prove tke Eartk is Rotating? 

The Foucault pendulum is another in a 
long line of purported proofs for the 
Copemican system. All over the world 
museums and universities house a working 
replica of Foucault’s pendulum, modeled 
after the original device that was invented by 
the French physicist, Jean Foucault in 1851. 
As one engineer noted: 

“They are centerpieces in some of the most 
influential places in the world. And they are 
built like altars, marble railings, floor stars 
and all. It shows how much the geocentricity- 
heliocentricity controversy means to those in 
power and just how important it is to them to 
prove that the Bible is wrong. The longest one 
is I think in the cathedral in Leningrad which 
the communists put up when they took over the Church....The U.N. 
building has one, too. There they are, mesmerizing millions...” 273 

Like any pendulum, such as those in the typical grandfather clock, the 
main action is the back-and-forth motion of a bob that hangs from a wire 
or rope of some proportionate length. But, unlike a grandfather clock that 
anchors the pendulum in one plane, the Foucault pendulum allows the 
anchor to rotate. That being the case, the plane of the pendulum will rotate 
over a given period of time. For example, if the pendulum begins its swing 
back-and-forth between the 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock position of the 
platform, within an hour or so, the pendulum will have moved to swinging 
between the 1 o’clock and the 7 o’clock position. Within an extended 
length of time (12 hours and 24 hours or longer), the pendulum will once 
again be swinging between the 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock position. 

Jean Foucault 


273 Richard G. Elmendorf, private letter of April 15, 1992, cited in Paula Haigh’s 
paper, Galileo’s Heresy, p. 13. The pendulum in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) 
to which Elmendorf refers was housed at St. Isaac’s Cathedral, which the 
communists had converted from Orthodox worship to an “anti-Christian” 
museum. The pendulum was put in place on April 12, 1931 for the inauguration of 
the museum. I personally visited the cathedral to verify this information. The 
pendulum is no longer there but a plaque commemorating it remains. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

At different latitudes, however, there are different effects on the 
pendulum. At the North Pole the plane of the pendulum will rotate a full 
360 degrees each 24-hours, or about 15 degrees per hour. As one moves 
farther from the North Pole in a southerly direction, the pendulum will 
slow down its rotation. In Washington DC, for example, instead of rotating 
15 degrees in one hour, it moves about 9 degrees. At the equator there is 
no rotation of the pendulum. As one source describes it from the 
heliocentric or rotating Earth perspective: 

At either the North Pole or South Pole, the plane of oscillation of 
a pendulum remains pointing in the same direction while the 
Earth rotates underneath it, taking one sidereal day to complete a 
rotation. When a Foucault pendulum is suspended somewhere on 
the equator, then the plane of oscillation of the Foucault 
pendulum is at all times co-rotating with the rotation of the 
Earth. What happens at other latitudes is a combination of these 
two effects. At the equator the equilibrium position of the 
pendulum is in a direction that is perpendicular to the Earth’s 
axis of rotation. Because of that, the plane of oscillation is co¬ 
rotating with the Earth. Away from the equator the co-rotating 
with the Earth is diminished. Between the poles and the equator 
the plane of oscillation is rotating both with respect to the stars 
and with respect to the Earth. The direction of the plane of 
oscillation of a pendulum with respect to the Earth rotates with 
an angular speed proportional to the sine of its latitude; thus one 
at 45° rotates once every 1.4 days and one at 30° every 2 days. 274 

274 foucault-pendulum 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Below the equator the rotation begins again, but in the opposite 
direction than the northern hemisphere (which is similar to the fact that 
weather systems rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and 
clockwise in the southern hemisphere, at least most of the time). 

From the above description, one can imagine why many who were 
looking for proof of a rotating Earth would appeal to the Foucault 
pendulum. It seems logical to posit that the reason the plane of the 
pendulum appears to be moving in a circle is that the Earth beneath it is 
rotating. In other words, the heliocentrist insists that the pendulum’s 
circular motion is an illusion. The pendulum is actually moving back-and- 
forth in the same plane and the Earth is turning beneath it. Since the Earth 
is too big for us to sense its rotation, we instead observe the plane of the 
pendulum rotate. All one need do to prove the Earth is rotating, he insists, 
is to reverse the roles, that is, imagine the plane of the pendulum is 
stationary and the Earth beneath it is moving. As Assis notes, it was 
Foucault himself who had made the original claim that the oscillating 
pendulum proved the Earth rotated: 

It is curious to note Foucault’s description of his experiment. 
Sometimes he speaks of the rotation of the earth relative to space 
and other times relative to the fixed stars (heavenly sphere). He 
does not distinguish these two rotations or these two 
concepts....For instance, he begins by stating that his experiment 
showing the rotation of the plane of oscillation “gives a sensible 
proof of the diurnal motion of the terrestrial globe.” To justify 
this interpretation of the experimental result he imagines a 
pendulum placed exactly at the North pole oscillating to and fro 
in a fixed plane, while the earth rotates below the pendulum. He 
then says: “Thus a movement of oscillation is excited in an arc of 
a circle whose plane is clearly determined, to which the inertia of 
the mass gives an invariable position in space . If then these 
oscillations continue for a certain time, the motion of the earth, 
which does not cease turning from west to east, will become 
sensible by contrast with the immobility of the plane of 
oscillation, whose trace upon the ground will appear to have a 
motion conformable to the apparent motion of the heavenly 
spheres ... 275 

275 L. Foucault, “Physical demonstration of the rotation of the earth by means of 
the pendulum,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, 21:350-353, 1851, as cited in 
Relational Mechanics by Andre K.T. Assis, 1999, p. 78-79. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

This particular logic, however, doesn’t prove the Earth is rotating. 
One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum 
is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating 
beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? 
In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to 
what is it stationary? This is understood as an “unresolved” force in 
physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest 
of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. 
With a little insight one can see that this brings us back to the problem that 
Einstein and the rest of modem physics faced with the advent of Relativity 
theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or is it the stars 
revolving around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: “The two sentences: ‘the 
sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at 
rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two 
different coordinate systems.” 276 As such, it would be just as logical and 
scientifically consistent to posit that the combined forces of the universe 
which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to 
rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model 
the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion - it really rotates. Modem 
physics has no argument against this reasoning since according to Einstein, 
there is no difference between the two models. Ernst Mach, from whom 
Einstein developed many of his insights, stated much the same. Critiquing 
Newton’s “absolute space” as the pivot upon which the Foucault pendulum 
would turn, Mach writes: 

If the earth is affected with an absolute rotation about its axis, 
centrifugal forces are set up in the earth: it assumes an oblate 
form, the acceleration of gravity is diminished at the equator, the 
plane of Foucault’s pendulum rotates, and so on. [In Newton’s 
view] all these phenomena disappear if the earth is at rest and the 
other heavenly bodies are affected with absolute motion round it, 
such that the same relative rotation is produced. But if we take 
our stand on the basis of facts, we shall find we have knowledge 
only of relative spaces and motions. Relatively, not considering 
the u nk nown and neglected medium of space, the motions of the 
universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the 
Copernican mode of view. 277 

276 The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, 
Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212. 

277 Dr. Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics, 4 th edition. Merchant Books, pp. 
231-232. In the same vein, Assis notes that Foucault is equivocal about the precise 
pivot point for his pendulum, noting: “To justify this interpretation of the 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Hence, the Foucault pendulum offers no proof for heliocentrism; 
rather, it only proves how presumptuous modem science has been for the 
last few hundred years. The same goes for the appeal to the oblateness of 
the Earth as proofs of the Earth’s rotation. The only fact these particular 
phenomena prove is that there is a force causing the effect, not that a 
rotation of the Earth is causing the force. 

The Foucault Pendulum: 
turning Earth or turning space? 2 

experimental result he imagines a pendulum placed exactly at the North pole 
oscillating to and fro in a fixed plane, while the earth rotates below the pendulum. 
He then says: ‘Thus a movement of oscillation is excited in an arc of a circle 
whose plane is clearly determined, to which the inertia of the mass gives an 
invariable position in space . If then these oscillations continue for a certain time, 
the motion of the earth, which does not cease turning from west to east, will 
become sensible by contrast with the immobility of the plane of oscillation, whose 
trace upon the ground will appear to have a motion conformable to the apparent 
motion of the heavenly spheres ’ (L. Foucault, “Physical demonstration of the 
rotation of the earth by means of the pendulum,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, 
21:350-353, 1851, as cited in Assis’ Relational Mechanics 1999, pp. 78-79). Assis 
shows the fallacy in Foucault’s thinking: “Experimentally it is found that this co d 
[angular rotation of the earth] has the same value (in direction and order of 
magnitude) as the kinematical rotation of the earth relative to the fixed stars.. ..But 
there is no explanation of this fact in Newtonian mechanics” (op. cit., p. 79). 

278 See CDROM for animation of the heliocentric and geocentric movements of 
the Foucault Pendulum. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

The force that is moving the pendulum to change the plane of its 
swing is the Coriolis force. As we noted in the discussion of Newton’s 
laws, Coriolis force is created not only by a rotating Earth in a fixed 
universe, but also by a rotating universe around a fixed Earth. As Assis 
notes, the rotating galaxies also create a Coriolis force that turns the 
Foucault Pendulum on a fixed Earth. 

...diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a 
period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force 
flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is 
explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over 
the earth’s surface in the form -2m g u me X a> Ue where u me is 
the velocity of the test body relative to the earth and co Ue is the 
angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth. The 
effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the 
pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars. 279 

Einstein admitted the same in a June 25, 1913 letter to Ernst Mach: 

Your happy investigations on the foundations of mechanics, 
Planck’s unjustified criticism notwithstanding, will receive 
brilliant confirmation. For it necessarily turns out that inertia 

279 Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191. See also “As the earth 
is at rest...we arrive at Ylj=\Fjm ~ m g (7 U e x (a> Ue X r me ) = 0. In this frame there 
will appear a real centrifugal force of gravitational origin due to the rotation of 
distant galaxies around the earth. This centrifugal forces flattens the earth at the 
poles. What would happen if the external galaxies were annihilated or did not 
exist? According to relational mechanics the centrifugal force would disappear, 
except for a small value due to the rotation of the earth relative to the sun, planets 
and stars belonging to our galaxy. The earth would no longer be flattened.. ..If we 
double the density of galaxies, then the Earth would have a double 
oblateness.. .provided it kept the same angular rotation relative to the distant 
universe....The flattened figure of the Earth or Foucault’s pendulum can no 
longer be utilized as proofs of the earth’s real rotation. In relational mechanics, 
both facts can be equally explained with the frame of distant galaxies at rest 
(exerting a gravitational force -Q>m g a mU on bodies at the earth’s surface while the 
earth rotates relative to this frame, or with the earth at rest while the distant 
galaxies rotate around it exerting a gravitational force -®m„ ( a me + 2u me X 
to Ue + co Ue X ( [co Ue X r me )) on bodies at the earth’s surface. Both explanations 
are equally correct and yield the same effects. It then becomes a matter of 
convenience or of convention to choose the earth, the distance galaxies or any 
other body or frame of reference to be considered at rest ” (Relational Mechanics, 
pp. 218-219, 223, my emphasis). 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the 
sense of your considerations on Newton’s pail experiment. The 
first consequence is on p. 6 of my paper. The following 
additional points emerge: (1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of 
matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an 
accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed 
stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force 
arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault 
pendulum is dragged around. 280 

Although Einstein is supposing that the stars are “fixed” and that the 
Earth rotates, according to Relativity theory the above paragraph can just 
as easily be applied to a rotating star-system (the universe) around a fixed 
Earth. In such a case, the universe would be the “heavy shell of matter S,” 
which, as it rotates, will create “an accelerative force” on the “mass 
enclosed by that shell,” the “mass” being any heavenly body. The 
“accelerative force” is understood by Einstein to be the “Coriolis force,” 
which is the force commonly cited to explain why “a Foucault pendulum” 
rotates. In other words, a universe of stars rotating around a fixed Earth 
will cause the peculiar movement of the Foucault pendulum just as a 
rotating Earth in a “fixed star” system. Like a leaf in a whirlpool, the 
pendulum would be carried around and around. It has inertia because it is 
caught in the gravitational draft of the stars’ diurnal circular movement. As 
Martin Selbrede notes: 

In a letter that Einstein sent to Ernst Mach in 1913, he showed 
what happened to a Foucault Pendulum in the event that you 
have a shell of matter rotating around the pendulum, and 
consequently, he said if it is a relatively small mass, we are 
going to see drag on the plane of oscillation of the pendulum, 
and it will start to precess. If the mass is large enough, we 
eventually get perfect frame-dragging, which is completely in 
synchronization with the rotating mass. So if the rest of the 
Universe is, in fact, rotating around us, then the Foucault 
Pendulum will still stay in synch with it and move its axis along 
with the Universe. That creates the inertial field, but the inertial 
field itself is in rotation. We have perfect frame-dragging, 
because everything out from Saturn and beyond looks like 

280 A series of four letters compiled by Friedrich Herneck in “Zum Briefwechsel 
Albert Einsteins mit Ernst Mach,” Forschungen und Fortschritte, 37:239-43, 



Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

infinite mass to the Earth, since it is traveling faster than the 
speed of light, so it satisfies the Schwarzschild criterion. It is that 
inertial field that is interpreted as why we send rockets heading 
due east from Cape Canaveral because we take advantage of 
plowing right into that inertial field and maximizing the value of 
it. It is the reason that north-south train tracks wear on one side 
more than the other. Again, because this force is a real force. It is 
not a fictitious force. Now, fictional and fictitious are two 
different words. I didn’t say fictional force, but a fictitious force, 
one that is described as, it appears to be the case, because of how 
things are moving. Centrifugal forces and Coriolis forces are 
alleged to be fictional forces that are due to the alleged rotation 
of the Earth. But if the Earth is fixed, then modern science, the 
serious ones that are doctrinaire and hold to the general principle 
of covariance, those are no longer fictitious forces, but are real 
forces that are actually present on the Earth’s surface that are 
induced by the rest of the Universe’s motion around us. 281 

Under the heading “dragging of inertial frames,” Misner, Thome and 
Wheeler posit that the angular velocity of the Foucault pendulum would be 
equal to that of the rotation of the stars. They write: 

Consider a bit of solid ground near the geographic pole, and a 
support erected there, and from it hanging a pendulum. Though 
the sky is cloudy, the observer watches the track of the Foucault 
pendulum as it slowly turns through 360°. Then the sky clears 
and, miracle of miracles, the pendulum is found to be swinging 
all the time on an arc fixed relative to the far-away stars. If 
“mass there governs inertia here,” as envisaged by Mach, how 
can this be? 

Enlarge the question. By the democratic principle that equal 
masses are created equal, the mass of the Earth must come into 
the bookkeeping of the Foucault pendulum. Its plane of rotation 
must be dragged around with a slight angular velocity, ©drag, 
relative to the so-called “fixed stars”....The distant stars must 
influence the natural plane of vibration of the Foucault pendulum 
as the nearby rotating shell of matter does, provided that the stars 
are not so far away...that the curvature of space begins to 

281 Interview of Martin Selbrede for the scientific documentary. The Principle, 
produced by Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC, Los Angeles, California, 2013. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

introduce substantial corrections into the calculation of Thirring 
and Lense. In other words, no reason is apparent why all masses 
should not be treated on the same footing....Mach’s idea that 
mass there determines inertia here has its complete mathematical 
account in Einstein’s geometrodynamic law. “Point out, please,” 
the anti-Machian critic says, “the masses responsible for this 
inertia.” In answer, recall that Einstein’s theory includes not only 
the geometrodynamic law, but also, in Einstein’s view, the 
boundary condition that the universe be closed.. ..This mass- 
energy, real or effective, is to be viewed as responsible for the 
inertial properties of the test particle that at first sight looked all 
alone in the universe. 282 

It would be no surprise to find the same reasoning in Einstein’s 
thinking. I will interject explanations in brackets so the reader can follow 
Einstein’s flow of thought in concrete terms: 

Let K [the universe] be a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system 
[a system of three dimensions extending to the edge of the 
universe], and let K' [the Earth] be a coordinate system rotating 
uniformly relative to K [the universe]. Then centrifugal forces 
would be in effect for masses at rest in the K' coordinate system 
[the Earth], while no such forces would be present for objects at 
rest in K [the universe]. Already Newton viewed this as proof 
that the rotation of K' [the Earth] had to be considered as 
“absolute,” and that K' [the Earth] could not then be treated as 
the “resting” frame of K [the universe]. Yet, as E. Mach has 
shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the 
existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the 
motion of K' [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them 
as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, 
detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K' [the Earth], 
whereby K' [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian 
mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the 
foundation for the defects of that theory.. , 283 

282 Misner, Thome and Wheeler, Gravitation, pp. 547-549. NB: the authors cite 
the work of Thirring and Lense work of 1918 and 1921 (which Einstein also cited 
in his book The Meaning of Relativity’). 

283 Hans Thirring, “Uber die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der 
Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,” Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918, 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

In other words, Einstein has confirmed that a universe in rotation 
around the Earth would produce the same centrifugal and Coriolis forces 
attributed to a rotating Earth in a fixed universe. Advocates of his theory 
confirm our understanding. C. Moller writes: 

...if we consider a purely mechanical system consisting of a 
number of material particles acted upon by given 
forces...Newton’s fundamental equations of mechanics may be 
applied with good approximation in the description of the 
system. On the other hand, if we wish to describe the system in 
an accelerated system of reference, we must introduce, as is well 
known, so-called fictitious forces (centrifugal forces, Coriolis 
forces, etc .) which have no connexion (sic) whatever with the 
physical properties of the mechanical system itself. ...It was just 
for this reason that Newton introduced the concept of absolute 
space which should represent the system of reference where the 
laws of nature assume the simplest and most natural 
form....Therefore Einstein advocated a new interpretation of the 
fictitious forces in accelerated systems of reference: instead of 
regarding them as an expression of a difference in principle 
between the fundamental equations in uniformly moving and 
accelerated systems he considered both kinds of systems of 
reference to be completely equivalent as regards the form of the 
fundamental equations; and the ‘fictitious’ forces were treated as 
real forces on the same footing as any other force of nature. The 
reason for the occurrence in accelerated systems of reference of 
such peculiar forces should, according to this new idea, be 
sought in the circumstance that the distant masses of fixed stars 
are accelerated relative to these systems of reference. The 
‘fictitious forces’ are thus treated as a kind of gravitational force, 
the acceleration of the distant masses causing a ‘field of 
gravitation’ in the system of reference considered....Previously 
the effect of the celestial masses had been considered to be 
negligible; now, however, we must included the distant masses 
in the physical systems considered....It can, however, be 
assumed that all systems of reference are equivalent with respect 
to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. This is the 
so-called general principle of relativity. 284 

translated: “On the Effect of Rotating Distant Masses in Einstein’s Theory of 

284 The General Theory’ of Relativity, Christian Moller, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 
1952, pp. 219-220. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Here is yet another description of how the strong principle of 
relativity works: 

As an illustration...for the validity of the strong principle of 
relativity, we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by 
an observer on the Moon both the Moon and the Earth are at rest 
(disregarding the observed spin of the Earth, which is of no 
concern here). If the observer solves Einstein’s field equations 
for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up 
with the Schwarzschild solution and conclude that the Moon 
should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems 
impossible to consider the Moon as at rest, which would imply 
that the strong principle of relativity is not valid. This problem 
has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the 
cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be 
included when the Moon observer solves Einstein’s field 
equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass 
induces the rotational nontidal gravitational field which is 
interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This 
field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the 
Earth. As we have shown above, corresponding results are valid 
for observers with accelerated translational motion. 285 

As we can see, Einstein’s system can have no objection to a 
geocentric universe. As Fred Hoyle noted, instead of denying geocentrism 
Relativity actually goes the other way and shows how much better a 
system it is. This is quite bothersome to those trying to promote the 
“Copemican Principle.” Not surprisingly, attempts have been made to 
distinguish them. In 1904, August Foppl designed an improvement on the 
Foucault pendulum experiment by using a carefully suspended gyroscope 
whose precessional motion would reveal the disposition of an inertial 
frame of reference. Foppl hoped his experiment would decide whether 
“...the terrestrial phenomena of motion is itself influenced by the rotation 
of the earth in such a way that, for these motions, the rotation of the earth 
does not coincide with that rotation with respect to the fixed star 
heaven.” 286 Foppl believed that the two systems would be different due to 
a “special influence of the rotation of the earth.” But Foppl reported that he 
could detect no deviation between the two systems within the accuracy of 

285 “Translational Inertial Dragging,” Oyvind Gran and Erik Eriksen, General 
Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 21, No. 2,1989, pp. 117-118. 

286 Essay by John Norton in Mach’s Principle from Newton’s Bucket to Quantum 
Gravity’, eds., Julian Barbour and Herbert Pfister, Vol. 6, Birkhauser, 1995, p. 31. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

his experiment. This, of course, meant that the Foucault pendulum did not 
prove the Earth rotates but merely that there was relative motion between 
the Earth and the stars. On November 5, 1904 Foppl concluded that an 
inertial system “obtains its orientation from the masses of the system of the 
universe in some kind of law governed manner.” The inertial forces are 
determined by all the bodies in the system which will then be disclosed by 
rotation, and the rotation will appear as a Coriolis force, which in turn 
moves the Foucault pendulum. 

Tke Rotating Ether and the Foucault Pendulum 

In addition to the principles of motion within modem science that 
allow a Foucault Pendulum to rotate on a fixed Earth, let’s also say that the 
same ether that caused the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment to measure an 
ether-drift of a 24-hour period (see chapter 5) is the same ether that causes 
a Foucault Pendulum at the North Pole to rotate 360 in a 24-hour period. 
In other words, if someone objects to using Einstein and Mach and instead 
presses the geocentrist to explain why, on a physical basis, the Foucault 
Pendulum turns in a circle at the North Pole but makes no movement at the 
equator, the reason is that the ether in the daily rotating universe creates a 
circular force at the North Pole but only a lateral force at the equator. 

Let’s also say that the reason the Foucault Pendulum rotates in a 
circle at the North Pole but merely oscillates back and forth with no 
angular movement at the equator is the same reason that in stellar 
aberration, over the course of a year, we see a star form a circle at the 
North Celestial Pole but a straight line (or hyperbola) at the equator. Let us 
recall this picture of the annual effect from stellar aberration: 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

In the above figure, a similar effect from the rotating universe occurs 
for the Foucault Pendulum at the North Pole and the equator, but at the 45 
degree mark the Pendulum will take 1.5 days to complete its revolution 
instead of forming an elliptical motion. In fact, we can characterize the 
back-and-forth oscillations of the Pendulum as the continual formation of 
hyperbolic ellipses, since the Pendulum never swings back to the same 
absolute spot from which it left. In essence, the Pendulum produces a 
precession of ellipses, which, at the North Pole, precesses 360 degrees in 
24 hours; while at the 45 degree latitude precesses 360 degrees in 36 
hours; and at the equator does not precess at all. The reason that the 
formations from stellar aberration are similar to those of the Foucault 
Pendulum is that they are both caused by a rotating universe, but for the 
Foucault Pendulum the circle at the North Pole is caused by the daily 
rotation of the universe, while the circle at the North Celestial Pole from 
stellar aberration is caused by the universe’s annual precession due its 
annual rotation. 

Objection #5: Doesn’t tbe Bulge at tbe Equator 
Prove tbe Eartb is Rotating? 

At the Earth’s equator, there is a slight increase in the Earth’s 
diameter as compared to the diameter between the Earth’s north and south 
pole. The ratio of this “bulge” is 230:231. 

Earth with no inertial forces affecting it 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Earth is oblate under influence of inertial forces 
(Exaggerated for illustration purposes) 

As noted previously, Arthur Eddington already laid out the two 
possible causes for this phenomenon: 

The btdge of the Earth’s equator may be attributed indifferently 
to the Earth’s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal 
force introduced when the Earth is regarded as non-rotating. 287 

This unique reciprocity, of course, relates back to the principle 
that the centrifugal and Coriolis forces will result when either the 
Earth is rotating in a fixed universe or the universe is rotating around 
a fixed Earth. (See previous sections on the Foucault Pendulum). 288 

287 Space, Time and Gravitation'. An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, 
1923, pp. 24, 41. Eddington adds: “Some would cut the knot by denying the aether 
altogether. We do not consider that desirable.” {ibid., p. 39). 

288 See CDROM for animation of the bulge of the Earth. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Objection #6: Doesn’t a Geosynchronous Satellite 
Prove tbe Earth is Rotating? 

According to Wikipedia, a geosynchronous satellite is one having orbital period the same as the Earth’s rotation period. Such 
a satellite returns to the same position in the sky after each 
sidereal day, and over the course of a day traces out a path in the 
sky that is typically some form of analemma. A special case of 
geosynchronous satellite is the geostationary satellite, which has 
a geostationary orbit - a circular geosynchronous orbit directly 
above the Earth's equator. Another type of geosynchronous orbit 
used by satellites is the Tundra elliptical orbit.” 289 

What holds the satellites up? 

Depending on how many miles the satellite is placed above the Earth 
will determine the velocity needed to keep the satellite at the chosen 
altitude. Due to the pull of gravity, the closer the satellite is to Earth the 
faster it must move to counteract gravity and maintain its altitude. At a 
distance of about 22,000 miles (where the gravity and inertial forces of the 
Earth, the Sun, the Moon, and the stars are apparently balanced), the 
satellite is “geostationary,” since it will remain indefinitely in the same 
position in space. The heliocentric system explains this phenomenon by 



Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

viewing the Earth as rotating with a 24-hour period, while the 
geostationary satellite remains motionless in space. As such, at a specific 
location on Earth (let’s say New York City) one will see the satellite 
directly overhead at one specific time during the day. In the geocentric 
system, however, the Earth is not rotating; rather, the whole of space is 
rotating around the Earth, which carries the satellite with it. In this case we 
might call it a stellar-stationary satellite instead of a geostationary satellite. 

The point in fact remains that geosynchronous satellites do not prove 
the Earth rotates. These satellites only prove that there is a relative rotation 
between the Earth and the satellite. The only real difference is in the cause 
for the inertial forces on the satellite. In the heliocentric system, the 
“fictitious” 290 centrifugal force is balanced by the gravity of the Earth so 
that the satellite can remain in the stationary position. In the geocentric 
system, the rotating universe generates a real centrifugal force on the 
satellite, but which is balanced by the gravity of the Earth so that the 
satellite remains in the stationary position. 

Objection #7: Don’t Sp ace Probes Ta he Moving Pictures of 
Eartb Over Many Hours and Observe it Rotating? 

In 1995 the European Space Agency launched the SOHO space probe. 
Similar to the balancing forces for a geostationary satellite, SOHO is in a 
halo orbit around a Lagrange point so that the balance of gravity and 
inertial forces between the Earth, the Sun, the Moon and the stars are such 
that SOHO can remain in the same relative position in space. From time to 
time the SOHO will take snapshots and moving pictures of the Earth. In 
both, the Earth will appear to be rotating with a 24-hour period. This does 
not prove that the Earth is rotating, however. Similar to the geostationary 
satellite, it only proves that there is a relative rotation between SOHO and 

290 In Newtonian physics, the centrifugal force is called “fictitious” because the 
real cause is attributed to the fact that the satellite seeks to move in a straight line 
as opposed to a curved path. In Machian physics, the satellite is pulled by the 
gravity of the stars and the gravity of the Earth, residting in a curved path. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

the Earth. In the heliocentric system, SOHO is stationary and the Earth is 
rotating underneath it. In the geocentric system, the Earth is stationary and 
SOHO is being carried by the universe that rotates around a fixed Earth. In 
both, Earth will appear to be rotating. 

Objection #8: Doesn’t Retrog’rade Motion 
Prove tbe Eartb is Moving’? 

Retrograde motion occurs when a planet that has been traversing the 
night sky in one direction for several months then appears to reverse its 
direction for a few weeks, and a few weeks later reverses its direction 
again, heading back in the same direction it had originally been traveling. 
In principle, each of the planets, as viewed from Earth, will create a 
retrograde motion, although some, due to their close proximity to Earth, 
will have more pronounced retrogrades. This is true of Venus and Mars, 
the latter’s path being the most eccentric. Below are six slides (three 
heliocentric and three geocentric) depicting what occurs in both models of 
the relative motions between the Earth and Mars. The red line represents 
the path that Mars appears to take as viewed from Earth. 291 

Explanation of Retrog’rade Motion 

Since in the heliocentric system the Earth travels faster in its orbit than 
Mars, at some point Mars, as viewed from Earth, will appear to travel 
backward during the time Earth is making its closest approach to Mars. 
Various astronomy texts and other science publications have consistently 
appealed to this phenomenon as a proof for heliocentrism. Science 
textbooks illustrate the occurrence with elaborate diagrams, while websites 
use sophisticated java script animations, both purporting that only the 
heliocentric model has an explanation for retrograde motion. Rarely will 
the author educate the public to the fact that both the geocentric model 
answers the phenomenon of retrograde motion just as well as the 
Copernican model. Since the Copemican, the Ptolemaic and the 
Tychonean models can incorporate the same geometrical distances 
between the planets and the sun, all models, in principle, can account for 
retrograde motion, and they will do so in identical geometrical proportions. 

291 See CDROM for animations of the geocentric and heliocentric versions of 
retrograde motion. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 
Heliocentric Retrograde Motion 

Figure 1: The Earth and Mars are revolving counterclockwise around the sun. The red line 
represents the appearance of Mars' motion against the fixed stars, as viewed from Earth. 

Figure 2: As Earth overtakes Mars in their respective orbits around the sun, Mars appears 
to move backward against the fixed stars. 

Figure 3: As Earth begins to revolve downward, Mars is moving more laterally, giving the 
appearance that Mars is resuming its forward course against the fixed stars. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 
Geocentric Rctrog'ra ae Motion 

Figure 4: The sun is revolving counterclockwise around the Earth as Mars is revolving 
around the sun. The red line represents Mars' motion against the fixed stars. 

Figure 5: As the sun begins to move further in its orbit and carry Mars with it, Mars will 
appear to slow its speed and reverse its course against the fixed stars. 

Figure 6: As the sun moves even further in its orbit, Mars moves to the left, thereby 
causing it to appear to resume its forward course against the fixed stars. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Objection #9: Doesn’t St ar-Streaming 
Prove tbe Eartb is Moving? 

Star-streaming is the optical phenomenon occurring when stars seem 
either to spread apart from each other or come closer together. It is 
analogous to a person riding in a car that is parallel to a forest and noticing 
that as the car moves, the trees seem to spread apart from each other, while 
other trees seem to come closer together. It is an optical illusion that is 
caused by the relative movement between the objects and the observer. In 
1783 William Herschel discovered that the sun appears to move through 
the stars. He isolated thirteen such stars and found that as the sun moved 
through them they were spreading apart from a point in the constellation 
Hercules. He then isolated thirty-six stars and found similar results. 
Friedrich Argelander, an assistant to Friedrich Bessel, found similar results 
with 390 stars in 1830. In 1842 Otto Struve confirmed the results. As in 
the case of parallax discovered in 1838, these star-streaming results were 
invariably touted as proof of the heliocentric system. In reality it provides 
no proof at all. The reason is simple. The optical illusion of the separation 
of the stars can be caused either by the Earth moving past the stars or the 
stars moving past a fixed Earth. Both will produce the phenomenon of 

Objection #10: Doesn’t tbe Doppler Effect 
Prove tbe Eartb is Moving? 

Sound the driver hear* 


Sound observer Sound obaerver 


31 m 

Observer 1 Car 


traveling Observer 2 

d the right 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

The Doppler Effect (or Doppler Shift) was discovered by Christian 
Doppler in 1842. This effect occurs when the source of wave emission 
moves closer or farther away from the observer. The waves are 
compressed when the source moves closer and stretched when the source 
moves farther away. This phenomenon does not occur, however, when the 
receiver moves closer or farther away from a stationary source since the 
waves coming to the receiver are the same in both cases. 

Light acts in a similar manner. If the source of light is moving closer 
to the observer, the light waves are compressed or “blue-shifted”; while if 
the source of light is moving farther away from the observer, the light 
waves are stretched or “red-shifted.” 

The first blue-shifted or red-shifted stars observed were Aldebaran, 
Arcturus and Betelgeuse in 1894 by J. E. Keeler. They would produce a 
spectrum like that in the below graph. 292 

2,2 J. E. Keeler, Publications of the Lick Observatory, 3:195, 1894, cited in G. 
Bouw’s Geocentricity, p. 363. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Heliocentrists have claimed that since the Earth revolves around the 
sun at about 19 mps, this movement causes the Doppler shift of stars. As 
one author puts it, “Classical physics, but not Special Relativity, predicts 
different Doppler shifts for the source moving versus the observer moving, 
allowing one to ‘determine’ whether the earth moves or a ‘fixed star’ 
moves....To conclude, Mach did not consider the difference between the 
Copemican and Ptolemaic/Brahean systems and the observations 
falsifying the latter.” 293 The truth is, however, that the Neo-Tychonic 
geocentric system can easily explain Doppler shift. As we have noted 
previously, the Neo-Tychonic system has the star field rotating around the 
Earth on a 1 AU radial hub. 

As such, on one hemisphere of the star field the stars will be receding 
away from the Earth and on the opposite hemisphere the stars will be 
advancing toward the Earth. Those advancing toward the Earth will create 
a Doppler blue shift and those receding away from the Earth will create a 
Doppler red shift. 

The Stars are aligned with the sun, and the sun 
revolves around the Earth on a 1 AU radial pivot 

293 Herbert I. Hartman and Charles Nissim-Sabat, “On Mach’s critique of Newton 
and Copernicus,” American Journal of Physics 71(11), November 2003, p. 1167. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Objection #11: Isn't tbe Geometry of Geocentrism More 
Complicated tban Heliocentrism? 

A somewhat common objection to geocentrism is that if it were true, 
the whole geometry of the solar system would be out of whack. Planets 
would be revolving in different orbits and nothing would look the same in 
the night sky as it does now. It is further argued that space probes and 
interplanetary satellites would never be able to get to their charted 
destination. Some even believe that the planets and asteroids would crash 
into each other. Suffice it to say, all these objections have no merit. The 
geocentric and the heliocentric systems share the same distances, geometry 
and speeds. The only difference is what occupys the center. In the 
Copemican system the sun is in the center while the Earth and all the 
planets are revolving around it. The Tychonic system is very similar, 
except that it puts the Earth in the center instead of the sun but still has the 
planets revolving around sun while the sun is revolving around the Earth. 
That the geometry, distances and speeds are identical between the 
Copemican and Tychonic systems can be seen in the following graphics. 
We start with the sun in the center. The planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth 
and Mars are revolving counterclockwise. 

Tbe Heliocentric and Geocentric Systems 

Fig. 1 : In the heliocentric system on the left, the sun is in the center of the crosshairs and 
the planets are at the 9:00 o'clock position. In the geocentric system on the right, the 
Earth is in the center of the crosshairs. Notice that all the distances and geometry are the 
same. The only difference is that the center has changed. 294 

94 See CDROM for Orrery animations. All movements are counter-clockwise. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Fig. 2: For the heliocentric system, the Earth has completed one-fourth of its orbit. For the 
geocentric system, the sun, carrying the planets, has completed one-fourth of its orbit. All 
the distances and positions of the planets are precisely the same in each system. 

Fig. 3 : In the heliocentric system, the Earth has completed half its orbit. In the geocentric 
system the sun has completed half its orbit. 

Fig. 4: Both systems have completed % orbit. All distances & positions remain the same. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Objection #12: In the Geocentric System, Wky Do the 
Planets Revolve aroun d the Sun Instead o f the Earth? 

As we have noted earlier, in the Ptolemaic system the sun and planets 
revolve around the Earth. In the Tychonic system the sun revolves around 
the Earth but the planets revolve around the sun. The natural question is: 
how can the planets revolve around the sun and not the Earth in the 
Tychonic model? We can answer this best by an illustration from a binary 
star system. In such a system two stars revolve around a common center of 
mass. Let’s say that one of the stars has a planetary system attached to it. 
In such a system the planets are held to the star by the force of gravity. The 
planets do not revolve around the common center of mass between the two 
stars but only around the center of mass of the star which holds the planets 
by its gravity. In other words, there are two centers of mass in operation, 
one for the two stars to revolve around each other, and one for the planets 
to revolve around one of the stars. The point in fact is that there can be 
more than one center of mass for a specific system. The same is true with 
the planets in our system, since some of them have moons revolving 
around a mutual center of mass, yet the planets are revolving around a 
mutual center of mass with the sun. As such, the sun and the planets have 
their own center of mass (which is near the sun), while the Earth, the sun, 
the moon, and the rest of the universe have another center of mass (which 
is the Earth in the geocentric system). 

Objection #13: Don’t the Four Seasons Prove the Earth is 
Tilted and Revolving aroun d the Sun? 

Almost all school children have been taught since third grade that the 
reason we have four seasons is that the Earth is tilted 23.5 degrees on its 
axis, which, as it travels around the sun, the tilt will cause the hemispheres 
of the Earth to alternate in receiving the most direct light from the sun, 
thereby causing summer in the northern hemisphere while it is winter in 
the southern hemisphere. One can see these motions in the following 
graphic sequence: 295 

295 See CDROM for animations of the geocentric and heliocentric versions of the 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Tke Heliocentric Seasons 

Figure 1: The Earth's northern hemisphere is tilted 23.5 degrees away from the sun and is 
in winter, while the southern hemisphere is enjoying summer. 

Figure 2: The Earth's northern and southern hemisphere have no tilt toward or away from 
the sun. Both regions are in spring time. 

Figure 3: The Earth northern hemisphere is tilted 23.5 degrees toward the sun and is 
enjoying summer, while the southern hemisphere is in winter. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 
Tke Geocentric Seasons 

The geocentric seasons are caused by the change in the sun’s 
latitude as it revolves around the Earth. 

Ecliptic Plane ° Yearly Rotation Daily Rotation 

Geocentric View 27 December Sun Deg. -22.7 

Mouse Drag 
and Wheel 

Planets l_i Zodiac 

Figure 1: The Earth is in the center and not tilted. The sun is revolving around the Earth 
daily. At its lowest orbital plane, which is 23.5 degrees below the Earth's equator, it is 
summer in the southern hemisphere and winter in the northern. After the plane of the 
sun's orbit reaches 23.5 degrees below the equator, it begins to ascend. As it revolves, it 
changes the plane of its orbit by 47 degrees over six months, or 0.2575 degrees per day. 

Ecliptic Plane ° Yearly Rotation Daily Rotation 

Geocentric View 18 June Sun Deg. 20.1 

Mouse Drag 
and Wheel 

Planets Zodiac 

Figure 2: It is summer in the northern hemisphere and the plane of the sun's orbit has 
reached a height of 23.5 degrees above the Earth's equator. The sun's plane will now 
begin to descend by 0.2575 degrees per day. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 
Wkat Causes tke Sun to Move up and Down in its Orkit? 

The next question concerns how the sun moves up and down during 
the four seasons. First we note that an isosceles triangle with two sides of 
93 million miles (the distance from the Earth to the sun), at an angle of 47 
degrees (23.5 in the northern hemisphere and 23.5 in the southern) will 
require the sun to oscillate between its northern apex and its southern 
antapex by 74 million miles every six months. 


As we noted earlier, the sun moves with the whole star field. This 
means that the star field is also moving vertically by 74 million miles 
every six months. The combination of: (1) the star field’s rotation around 
the Earth and (2) its vertical oscillation, is what moves the sun laterally 
and vertically, and causes our four seasons. In the laboratory, such dual 
motion causes a progressive wave and/or an inertial oscillation. 296 We 
sense these movements by the effects of the Coriolis force. 

One might ask, if the star field is oscillating vertically by 74 million 
miles on a semi-annual basis, would we be able to see it move up and 
down every six months just as we do the sun? The answer is no. The stars 
are too far away for us to be able to detect a 74 million mile vertical 
movement. Even for the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, it would be akin to 
detecting a softball move up and down from a distance of 50 miles. 
Whereas the sun creates a 47 degree angle with the Earth when it moves 
vertically by 74 million miles, Alpha Centauri would create only a 0.00019 
degree angle - much too small to detect even with a powerful telescope. In 
fact, the viewing angle is much smaller than the angle of aberration caused 
by the star field rotating laterally around the Sun-Earth 1 AU pivot. (Refer 
back to the section on stellar aberration). 

Whereas centrifugal force creates a radial/linear direction, the 
Coriolis force creates a curved direction. In the northern hemisphere, the 
Coriolis force turns clockwise, while in the southern hemisphere it turns 

296 See this video for a demonstration of the Coriolis force, and standing and 
progressive waves: 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

counter-clockwise, thus producing opposite forces above and below the 
equator, respectively. 

As the star field rotates around the Earth 
in a clockwise direction, it also oscillates 
vertically, and both movements create the 
universal Coriolis force. Since the Earth 
lies directly in the center of the star field’s 
equatorial plane, the Coriolis, as well as 
centrifugal and Euler forces, are 
completely balanced and thus will not 
move the Earth. In the case of celestial 
bodies that are already in motion and 
within the vicinity of Earth, the rotating 
and oscillating star field will move the 
sun, which in turn moves the planets by 
gravitational and inertial forces. The Earth 
acts as the center of mass for the whole system. All in all, the model is 
very simple. The gravity of the universe, in conjunction with its rotational 
and undulating movement, causes and controls all other rotational and 
oscillating movement. At Earth, all the forces are balanced and thus the 
Earth does not move. 

Coriolis Force - North 
Clockwise Direction 

Coriolis Force - South 

The CMB dipoles, divided by 
Earth's equator into 
hemispheres, go in opposite 
directions and extend 
throughout the entire 

Hurricanes, divided by 
Earth's equator, go in 
opposite directions in their 
respective hemispheres 

As we will see in Chapter 3, the above model of a rotating and 
undulating universe fits like a glove with the cosmic microwave 

297 Image courtesy of 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

background radiation (CMB). Since the whole universe oscillates within 
the space of our ecliptic and equinoxes, we can now understand why the 
entire CMB is aligned with the space bordering the ecliptic and equinoxes. 
In fact, the connection between the CMB and the undulating universe is 
precisely why the CMB dipole and quadrupole extend from our Sun-Earth 
region out to the furthest reaches of the known universe. It appears that the 
universe’s all pervasive Coriolis force is causing the CMB to orient itself 
around the cosmic axis just as, for example, hurricanes orient their spin 
and direction around the Earth’s equator. In the typical picture of the CMB 
dipole seen above, the two poles resemble the orientations that hurricanes 
assume in the northern and southern hemispheres of the Earth, 

Tke Sun’s Independent Movement 

We also know that the sun moves faster through the stars at various 
times of the year. As Einstein notes: “To begin with it followed from 
observations of the sun that the apparent path of the sun against the 
background of the fixed stars differed in speed at different times of the 
year.. ,” 298 Kepler believed he solved this mystery by proposing the planets 
revolved in elliptical orbits. If we transfer elliptical motion to the 
geocentric system, the sun would travel in an elliptical orbit around the 
Earth. As such, the sun would be farther away from the Earth in June than 
it would be in December. It is approximately 94 million miles away in 
June and 91 million miles in December. Hence the sun’s orbital diameter 
would increase from 182 million miles in December to 188 million miles 
in June. It would need to travel an additional 18.84 million miles to 
complete its orbit. 299 In order to do so, the sun must daily increase its 
speed from December to June; and daily decrease its speed from June to 
December. At its peak on June 21, the sun is traveling at 18.71 mps or 
67,388 mph. On December 21 the sun is traveling at its slowest of 18.21 
mps or 65,237 mph. 

In Newtonian/Machian dynamics, the increased speed of the sun 
beginning on December 21 will increase the centrifugal force on the sun 
and cause it to increase its radius of orbit around the Earth. This radius will 

298 Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 263. 

299 The stars revolve around the Earth on a daily basis of 23 hours, 56 minutes and 
4 seconds. The sun revolves around the Earth with the stars but does so at a 
slightly slower rate, completing its orbit in 24 hours. The difference is thus 4 
minutes and 56 seconds on average. On June 21, the sun, because of its faster 
speed, lags behind the stars less than it does every other day of the year. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

increase each day until it reaches a peak on June 21. As the speed begins to 
decrease after June 21, the centrifugal force will also decrease, thus 
decreasing the radius of the sun’s orbit. If one were to observe this process 
from outside the solar system so that he could view the sun’s up and down 
movement over the course of the year, he would see the trajectory in the 
form of a V-shape. 

Dynamically speaking, the sun will move up and down over the 
course of year for the same reason the water in a bucket will rise on the 
sides of the bucket when it is spun. The faster the bucket spins the greater 
the centrifugal force, and the more the water will climb the sides of the 
bucket. Similarly, the faster the sun revolves around the Earth, the greater 
the centrifugal force and the greater will be the sun’s distance from the 
Earth. The sun is forced to make these changes due to the fact that it is in 
an inertial field and it must respond to the forces in that field just like a 
gyroscope. As such, over the course of a year the sun’s axis will tilt by 
about 2.83 degrees since it always keeps the same angle toward the Earth, 
just as the moon tilts by about 0.6 degrees in order to keep the same face 
and angle toward the Earth; or as Saturn turns its rings, which are all due 
to the gyroscopic effect on their movements. 

The Newtonian/Machian dynamic has one major drawback, however. 
It does not have any physical explanation for why the sun increases its 
speed at certain times of the year (or, in the heliocentric system, it has no 
explanation why the Earth increases its speed around the sun), except for 
the fact that whatever celestial body is revolving it is said to obey the “area 
law” of motion and the law of gravity. But these are merely mathematical 
equations which calculate the effects of the area law and gravity. They do 
not explain the physical cause of gravity, and thus they do not tell us the 
physical reason that either the sun in the geocentric system or the Earth in 
the heliocentric system are, indeed, affected by gravity or are increasing or 
decreasing their speed in an “area law.” As we will see in later chapters, in 
an alternative geocentric ether-based system, the increase or decrease of 
the sun’s speed, as well as its orbital oscillation, is directly related to the 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

speed and direction of the ether which surrounds it. In Chapter 5 we will 
see the experiments of Dayton C. Miller show that the speed of the ether 
around the Earth is greatest in June and least in December. 300 

Tke Anal emma 

Analemma comes from the Greek word ava.Ariuua meaning “pedestal 
of a sundial.” It appears in time-lapse photography of the sun’s yearly 
position when photographed from the same location and time at various 
days during the year. These composite pictures were taken in the northern 
hemisphere at 45 degrees latitude. Of the three position marked, #1 
represents the northern solstice about June 21; #2 represents the time near 
the Vernal and Autumnal equinoxes (March 21 and September 21); and #3 
represents the southern solstice about December 21. 

The analemma changes its orientation and shape depending on where 
it is photographed on the Earth. For example, at the North Pole the 
analemma would be vertical but with only the small loop of the top half 
visible. At the equator, the analemma is seen with both loops and directly 
overhead but in a horizontal position. At the South Pole, the analemma 
would again be vertical but upside down, with only the large loop visible. 
These differences are due to how much of the sun can be seen at various 
locales on the Earth and from which angle the sun is viewed. 

We see something similar on a daily basis with geosynchronous 
satellites. 302 We can use these daily satellite movements since, in certain 

300 Miller showed the following results: February: 9.8km/s; April: lO.lkm/s; June: 
maximum; August: 11.2km/s; September 9.6km/s; December: minimum. 

301 Picture taken from Das wahre Weltbild nach Hildegard von Bingen, by Helmut 
Posch, p. 136. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

respects, the yearly is the daily multiplied by 365 days. Depending on how 
close to the equator and the initial incline of their trajectory, satellites will 
produce different ground trackings as observed from Earth. This is due to 
the fact that the satellite, depending on its initial location and speed, will 
react against the gravitational and inertial forces in space (whether we use 
the heliocentric or geocentric system). Note the three different satellite 
ground trackings in the following sample: 

Marisat 3 produces the characteristic figure-8. Thi s is because Marisat 
3 is both on an incline and moves in an elliptical orbit. Inmarsat F-32 has 
no incline and travels in a circle, thus produing the orange dot on the 
equator. Brasilsat-1 is at an incline and is farther out from Earth than 
Marisat 3, thus producing the zig-zag line instead of the figure-8. The sun 
can also be considered a satellite. It has an inclined orbit over a year of 
23.5 degrees, which will produce the typical figure-8 pattern. Since it also 
has either an elliptical orbit and/or travels faster in one part of its orbit than 
another, this will produce the larger lower loop in the figure-8. 

302 Geosynchronous refers to a satellite with a 24-hour period, regardless of 
inclination. Geostationary refers to a satellite with a 24-hour period, in a near¬ 
circular orbit, with an inclination of approximately zero. It appears to hover over a 
spot on the equator as shown by Inmarsat F-32. All geostationary orbits must be 
geosynchronous, but not all geosynchronous orbits are geostationary. An example 
of a geosynchronous but non-geostationary satellite would be the Marsat 3 with 
about a 30° inclination. The ground trace will retrace itself with every orbit, in this 
case in a figure-8 pattern. The ground trace will also vary between 30° north and 
30° south latitude due to its 30° inclination. If the geostationary satellite has an 
eccentricity near zero and an inclination of 60°, the ground trace would follow a 
similar, larger figure-8 path between 60° north and 60° south latitude. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Both the heliocentric and geocentric systems can explain the 
analemma. In the heliocentric system, three factors determine the size and 
shape of the analemma: obliquity, eccentricity, and the angle between the 
apse line and the line of solstices. If the Earth had a perfectly circular orbit 
and no axial tilt, the Sun would always appear at the same point in the sky 
at the same time of day throughout the year and the analemma would be a 
dot. If the Earth had a circular orbit and a significant axial tilt, the 
analemma would be a figure-eight shape with northern and southern lobes 
equal in size. If the Earth had an elliptical orbit but no axial tilt, the 
analemma would be a straight east-west line along the celestial equator. 

In the geocentric system, the sun has either a slightly elliptical orbit 
around the Earth and/or it changes its speed at various times during the 
year due to the inertial forces created by a rotating universe. At the 
summer solstice (June 21) the sun is 23.5 degrees above the equator but it 
is about 94 million miles from Earth, and therefore it must travel faster. At 
the winter solstice, the sun is 23.5 degrees below the equator but about 91 
million miles from Earth and therefore it will travel slower. This difference 
is what causes the smaller and larger loops of the analemma. 303 

Objection #14: Don’t Earthquakes and Tsunamis 
Retard tbe Earth’s Rotation? 

Invariably, when major earthquakes or tsunamis occur we are 
inundated with newspaper articles declaring that the Earth, as a result of 
the force coming from these catastrophes, was slowed in its rotation rate 
and/or its axis moved. The rotation rate is said to decrease by 
microseconds and the axial tilt by inches. The 2011 tsunami that hit Japan 
brought out numerous articles detailing these events. This one is from the 
New York Times : 

The magnitude-8.9 earthquake that struck northern Japan on 
Friday not only violently shook the ground and generated a 
devastating tsunami, it also moved the coastline and changed the 
balance of the planet. 

...Meanwhile, NASA scientists calculated that the redistribution 
of mass by the earthquake might have shortened the day by a 
couple of millionths of a second and tilted the Earth’s axis 

303 This also answers the objection raised against the geocentric system in the 
video at 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

On a larger scale, the unbuckling and shifting moved the planet’s 
mass, on average, closer to its center, and just as a figure skater 
who spins faster when drawing the arms closer, the Earth’s 
rotation speeds up. Richard S. Gross, a scientist at NASA’s Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory, calculated that the length of the day was 
shortened by 1.8 millionths of a second. 

The earthquake also shifted the so-called figure axis of the Earth, 
which is the axis that the Earth’s mass is balanced around. Dr. 
Gross said his calculations indicated a shift of 6.5 inches in 
where the figure axis intersects the surface of the planet. That 
figure axis is near, but does not quite align with, the rotational 
axis that the Earth spins around. 

Earlier great earthquakes also changed the axis and shortened the 
day. The magnitude-8.8 earthquake in Chile last year shortened 
the day by 1.26 millionths of a second and moved the axis by 
about three inches, while the Sumatra earthquake in 2004 
shortened the day by 6.8 millionths of a second. Dr. Gross said. 


In another article Gross is quoted as adding: 

“This shift in the position of the figure axis will cause the Earth 
to wobble a bit differently as it rotates, but will not cause a shift 
of the Earth’s axis in space - only external forces like the 
gravitational attraction of the sun, moon, and planets can do 
that,” Gross said. 

This isn’t the first time a massive earthquake has changed the 
length of Earth’s day. Major temblors have shortened day length 
in the past. 

The 8.8-magnitude earthquake in Chile last year also sped up the 
planet’s rotation and shortened the day by 1.26 microseconds. 
The 9.1 Sumatra earthquake in 2004 shortened the day by 6.8 

3°4 “Q ua j, e M oves Japan Closer to U.S. and Alters Earth’s Spin,” Kenneth Chang, 
March 13, 2011, at 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

And the impact from Japan’s 8.9-magnitude temblor may not be 
completely over. The weaker aftershocks may contribute tiny 
changes to day length as well. 

The March 11 quake was the largest ever recorded in Japan and 
is the world's fifth largest earthquake to strike since 1900, 
according to the USGS. It struck offshore about 231 miles (373 
kilometers) northeast of Tokyo and 80 miles (130 km) east of the 
city of Sendai, and created a massive tsunami that has devastated 
Japan's northeastern coastal areas. At least 20 aftershocks 
registering a 6.0 magnitude or higher have followed the main 

“In theory, anything that redistributes the Earth’s mass will 
change the Earth’s rotation,” Gross said. “So in principle the 
smaller aftershocks will also have an effect on the Earth’s 
rotation. But since the aftershocks are smaller their effect will 
also be smaller.” 305 

From the Jet Propulsion Laboratory report, Gross and Chao added more: 

Dr. Richard Gross of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 
Pasadena, Calif., and Dr. Benjamin Fong Chao, of NASA’s 
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., said all 
earthquakes have some affect on Earth’s rotation. It’s just they 
are usually barely noticeable. 

“Any worldly event that involves the movement of mass affects 
the Earth’s rotation, from seasonal weather down to driving a 
car,” Chao said. 

Gross and Chao have been routinely calculating earthquakes’ 
effects in changing the Earth’s rotation in both length-of-day as 
well as changes in Earth’s gravitational field. They also study 
changes in polar motion that is shifting the North Pole. The 
“mean North pole” was shifted by about 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) 
in the direction of 145 degrees East Longitude. This shift east is 
continuing a long-term seismic trend identified in previous 
studies. 306 

305 1115-japan-earthquake-shortened-earth-days.html 



Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

All of this sounds very technical and convincing, but we shall go 
through it line by line to determine its validity. First, if we add up all the 
earthquakes occurring on an annul basis, there are on average 1,450,000 
per year. About 90% are in the 2 - 2.9 Rictor scale range; about 9% in the 
3 to 3.9 range; and the rest between the 4 to 9. 307 Let’s say for the sake of 
argument about 25,000 significant earthquakes occur per year that affect 
the Earth’s rotation and figure axis the way Dr. Gross claims. Let’s say we 
take the estimates back 10,000 years to 8000 BC. That means 250 million 
noticeable earthquakes occurred since 8000 BC. Let’s also assume, based 
on present data, that Earth’s rotation changes by 0.5 microseconds for 
significant earthquakes. This means the Earth would have changed its 
rotation by 125 seconds or 2.08 minutes since 8000 BC. If we go beyond 
8000 BC to 108,000 BC, we now have the rotation of the Earth decreased 
by 20.8 minutes, which yields a rotation of 23 hours, 36.2 minutes. If we 
use 1 million years, it lessens the rotation by about 200 minutes. If 10 
million: 2000 minutes. If 100 million: 20,000 minutes. If 200 million, then 
40,000 minutes, which means the Earth would have been rotating in about 
12 hours. Anything beyond 86,400 minutes, the Earth will rotate once 
every second or less. If we use 4.5 billion years (which is the time modem 
science says the Earth has been in existence), the Earth would be spinning 
about 10 times every second. 

It matters little if we change the 25,000 earthquakes to 15,000; or the 
0.5 microseconds to 0.25 microseconds. Over time the Earth’s rotation will 
be dramatically affected, which includes only earthquakes. There are 
hundreds of aftershocks, tsunamis, atomic and high-powered explosions, 
hurricanes, tornados, and, as Dr. Chao of NASA said, anything “from 
seasonal weather down to driving a car” will affect the rotation rate. If we 
add up all those little forces over thousands of years, the heliocentric 
system has a very fragile Earth that is easily knocked out of whack and 
couldn’t possibly sustain life. 

We can escape this frightening scenario by considering some very 
important facts. First, most of the so-called changes in the Earth’s rotation 
and figure axis are not actually measured with a yardstick, as it were. 
Rather, modem geology presumes that the changes in rotation and 
orientation occur, of necessity, from Newton’s laws of motion for a 
rotating object. In principle, scientists believe that the changes in the 
Earth’s rotation are as calculable as the ice skater who, in a pirouette twirl, 
suddenly draws in her arms and begins to spin faster. All one needs to do 
to calculate the effect of the earthquake on Earth’s rotation is to plug in the 
numbers of the mass of the Earth; the force of the earthquake; the velocity 



Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

of rotation, etc., into Newton’s equations and it will show how much the 
Earth must change its rotation and axis in order to make the equation 
balance. Scientists then report this calculated change as a real change and 
a newspaper article is written declaring that the Earth has changed its 
rotation rate and its axis has shifted. The reality is, the conclusions were 
made on paper with equations, not by field research and measuring. 

Second, although there is a purported method by which scientists 
could measure changes in Earth’s rotation, the method is flawed and 
presumes the Earth is rotating before it interprets the data. The method 
commonly used is VLBI or Very Long Baseline Interferometry. 108 In brief, 
two interferometers (an instrument that can detect slight phase shifts in the 
wavelengths of light) are placed on either side of the Earth, which would 
make them 8000 miles apart. Light from a distant stellar object is absorbed 
by each interferometer, usually waves from a quasar or radio source 
galaxy. If there is any difference in the phases of the waves between the 
two interferometers, this means that something has moved. Either the 
source has moved, the Earth has moved, or even the radiation itself has 
moved. But because VLBI is commonly used by NASA and JPL under the 
assumption that the Earth is rotating, they find it perfectly justifiable to 
obtain the VLBI measurement from only one stellar source. Hence, if there 
is a difference in how the single stellar source is received by the two 
interferometers, it is then assumed the difference is because the Earth’s 
rotation changed, not because the source had moved. Essentially, the way 
in which NASA or JPL have set up the VLBI, they can have no means of 
determining whether the movement was due to the Earth or the source. 
This flaw is especially significant since it is already known that stars, 
quasars and galaxies have “proper motion,” that is, each of them have 
slight independent motion with respect to other stars. In fact, the proper 
motion of some objects is even greater than their parallax motion. 309 They 
also have independent “long-term drift motion.” 110 Both of these could 
very easily show up as a phase shift in a VLBI measurement. 
Consequently, it is absolutely necessary to distinguish whether the phase 
shift is caused by the source’s motion or caused by a modified rotation of 
the Earth. The only way NASA or JPL could distinguish between the two 
is for them to allow the VLBI to absorb radiation from at least three 

108 See following article at Wikipedia for brief summary: http://en.wikipedia 

109 Proper motion was suspected by 
early astronomers but proof was provided in 1718 by Edmund Halley, who 
noticed that Sirius, Arctums and Aldebaran were over half a degree away from the 
positions charted by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus 1850 years earlier. 



Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

sources, if not more. If it is found that all the other sources are moving in 
the same precise way as the original source, then there is evidence that the 
Earth is rotating. Without this methodology, all VLBI measurements are 
invalid to prove whether the Earth is rotating. 

Another problem for VLBI measurements is that they are performed 
using radio wavelengths. These are very long wavelengths compared to X- 
rays or gamma rays. Longer wavelengths create poor resolution. Hence, 
what may look like a phase shift in VLBI may, indeed, be only a false 
reading due to poor resolution. 

All in all, we must look in retrospect at this issue. Not only is there no 
proof from the VLBI that the Earth is rotating, recorded history has shown 
that there is no evidence of any appreciable difference between solar time 
and sidereal time. If the theory were correct that the Earth changes its 
rotation rate every time there is a cataclysmic disturbance on its surface, 
we would have seen the difference over time. Moreover, we would have 
seen the effects in the weather, the jet stream, biological rhythms, and just 
about anything that is dependent on the precision of a sidereal day. 

Conversely, the geocentric cosmos has a very stable system that keeps 
the sidereal clock from changing. There is no fragile Earth that changes its 
rate for every bump it encounters. Rather, the geocentric cosmos 
incorporates a whole universe that is rotating around the Earth. Due to the 
extreme mass of the universe, the tremendous inertia with which it 
completes its sidereal cycle can neither be increased or decreased. Like a 
giant flywheel, once pushed the geocentric universe will continue to rotate 
evenly, ad infinitum. In fact, to move the Earth from its fixed position, one 
would have to move the universe itself. Due to the dense constitution of 
the universe, the force of any potential axis-changing or rotation-changing 
disturbance on Earth ( e.g ., earthquakes) will be transferred and spread out 
to the entire universe. As such, the force dissipates so much that it has less 
of an effect than throwing a small stone into the ocean. 

Objection #15: Doesn’t NASA Use tbe Heliocentric System 
for its Probes an d Satellites? 

In reality, NASA will use whatever system is more convenient, the 
heliocentric or the geocentric, since NASA’s orbital mechanics know that 
both models are equivalent, geometrically and dynamically. If they are 
sending probes near the sun, NASA will usually apply a heliocentric 
model, since it is easier to make calculations when one considers the sun 
as fixed in space with the planets moving around it. If they are sending up 
satellites near the Earth, however, NASA will usually apply a geocentric 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

model, or what is known in the industry as a “fixed-Earth coordinate 
system.” This is because it is much easier to calculate and chart the 
movements of satellites circling the Earth if the Earth is understood as 
stationary in space. This fact is easily proven from the space agency’s own 
documentation. For example, in a letter written to the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) making the following inquiry: 
“Is the present movement of GOES [Geostationary Satellite] planned and 
executed on the basis of a fixed earth or a rotating earth?” the answer 
returned by the department head of GOES/POLAR Navigation, Office of 
Satellite Operations at the NOAA was very simple: “Fixed earth.” 311 

At other times, NASA tries to give the impression that only the 
heliocentric model will work. Through email correspondence in October 
2005, NASA representatives personally invited this author to their on-line 
Question and Answer forum. 312 A few weeks prior to the invitation, the 
same NASA representatives had answered a question on their forum 
regarding whether NASA’s probes could be sent into space and tracked 
using the geocentric system rather than the heliocentric. The NASA 
representatives answered in the negative, stating: “If the universe were 
geocentric, all of our calculations for space probe trajectories would be 
wrong.” The person who asked the question then sent NASA’s answer to 
this author as proof for the heliocentric system. Accepting NASA’s 
invitation, I then sent a formal question to the NASA website asking them 
to show proof why a geocentric system would not work. After six weeks of 
not receiving an answer, I contacted the representatives by private email 
and asked if they were planning to answer the question. They wrote back 
to me and stated that they did not plan to answer it. After I tried to 
convince them that, since in this public forum they had, by their initial 
assertions against geocentric navigation, already committed themselves 
and thus had an obligation to the public to defend their position, they still 
refused to answer. As a rejoinder, I told them that I would be including the 
entire communication between them and myself in this present book. The 
NASA representatives then demanded that their names be withheld, 

311 The original letter was addressed to Charles E. Liddick of the United States 
Department of Commerce, Office of Satellite Operations, Washington, DC 20233 
on November 17, 1989. Mr. Liddick transferred the inquiry to Lee Ranne, from 
GOES/POLAR Navigation, Office of Satellite Operations at the NOAA offices in 
the department of National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, 
who then wrote to, the questioner, Marshall Hall, on November 22, 1989, with a 
copy to Mr. Liddick. Original letters are cited in Marshall Hall’s The Earth is Not 
Moving, Cornelia, Georgia, Fair Education Foundation, 1994, p. 261. 

312 ( 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

We do not give you permission to quote us or use our names in 
your book or on your website. Although we work at NASA 
centers, we are not NASA employees and for us to be presented 
in your work as official representatives of NASA would be 
inappropriate and misleading. 

I have obliged their request, except to quote the above paragraph. To 
this day there has been no response from them. As one can see quite 
readily from the above exchanges, although one government agency, at 
least in a private letter, was willing to divulge the truth about the use of 
fixed-Earth mechanics, another agency refused to be as forthcoming when 
the audience included the millions of potential readers on the Internet. This 
is really no surprise. Those who control our space programs have a vested 
interest in keeping the public under the illusion of the Copemican 
Principle, since all their funding and projects are based on Copemican 
premises, including the quest to find life in other worlds. Only those who 
are courageous and knowledgeable enough can expose the illusion and 
allow the public to see the truth. 

One such party is the team of Ruyong Wang and Ronald Hatch, two 
former government satellite engineers who know the truth about the 
illusion. In investigations on the Global Positioning System they write: 

...NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed by 
the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical 
reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame. Because 
of some discrepancies between our standard earth-centered earth- 
fixed solution results and the JPL results, we investigated the 
input parameters to the solution very carefully. The measured 
and theoretical ranges computed in the two different frames 
agreed precisely, indicating that the Sagnac correction had been 
applied in each frame. 

As the discussion of the Sagnac effect indicates the fundamental 
question regarding the speed of light is the following: Is the 
speed of light constant with respect to the observer (receiver) or 
is it constant with respect to the chosen inertial ECI frame? 
Clearly the GPS range equation indicates the speed of light is 
constant with respect to the chosen frame....The JPL equations, 
used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that 
the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame. In the JPL 
equations, the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric 
frame....Clearly, the JPL equations treat the speed of light as 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

constant with respect to the frame - not as constant with respect 
to the receivers. 313 

In other words, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) employs the 
Earth Centered Inertial frame (ECI) for probes sent out near the Earth (as 
does NASA and the GPS), yet the Jet Propulsion Lab claims to use the 
“solar system barycentric frame” for deep space navigation. Wang and 
Hatch tell us, however, that “the Jet Propulsion Lab.. .because of historical 
reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame.” Not only does the 
Jet Propulsion Lab use the ECI frame exclusively, Wang and Hatch tell us 
that the Lab corrects the calculations in its “solar system barycentric 
frame” so that they match the ECI frame. We can clearly see that the 
Earth-centered frame is the standard, and thus, using the ‘solar system 
barycentric frame’ is superfluous. Once the Lab’s computer makes the 
corrections to the solar system barycentric frame, in reality the deep space 
navigation is actually using the ECI frame - a fixed Earth. The public 
wouldn’t have been made privy to this sleight-of-hand manipulation 
except for the fact that two knowledgeable insiders, Wang and Hatch, have 
told the real story. In effect, the Earth Centered Inertial frame (e.g., 
geocentrism) is the only frame that allows the GPS and various space 
probes to work properly. The significance of these facts will be highlighted 
when we deal with the Sagnac Effect in Chapter 5. 

Objection #16: Don't the Pli ases of Venus 
Disprove Ptolemy's Geocentrism? 

One of the more popular arguments offered against the geocentric 
system is the charge that Ptolemy’s model could not account for the phases 
of Venus. Galileo used this very argument against the geocentrists of his 
day. Since that time, few have examined Galileo’s claims with any 
respectable amount of scrutiny. The issue is a bit more complicated than 
meets the eye. Even those who see the merits of geocentrism, stumble over 
the phases of Venus. For example, although scientific writer Kitty 
Ferguson concedes, on the one hand, that: “...Einstein’s theories reveal 
they may actually slightly favor an Earth-centered model,” 314 and that the 
only advantage of Copemican theory is it “is more easily falsifiable than 
Ptolemy’s,” on the other hand she peipetuates the somewhat misleading 

313 Ruyong Wang and Ronald R. Hatch, Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the 
Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, ION GPS 58th Annual Meeting / 
CIGTF 21st Guidance Test Symposium, 2002, p. 500. 

314 Kitty Ferguson, Measuring the Universe, 1999, p. 106. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

conclusion that Ptolemy could not account for Venus’ phases. As she 
compares her own diagrams of Ptolemy and Copernicus’ she concludes: 

It was this line of reasoning that Galileo used in 1610, when he 
studied the planet Venus through his telescope....In the 
Ptolemaic system, with Venus always between the Earth and the 
Sun - traveling on an epicycle on a deferent with the Earth as its 
center - an observer on Earth would never see the face of Venus 
anywhere near fully illuminated. 315 

Ptolemy’s Phases of Venus 


■c= Venus’s Epicycle 

Venus’s Deferent 

Andrew White, in A Histoiy of the Warfare of Science with Theology 
in Christendom, employs his usual sardonic style to make the same point: 

Ten years after the martyrdom of Bruno the truth of 
Copernicus’s doctrine was established by the telescope of 
Galileo. Herein was fulfilled one of the most touching of 
prophecies. Years before the opponents of Copernicus had said 
to him, ‘If your doctrines were true, Venus would show phases 
like the moon.’ Copernicus answered: ‘You are right; I know not 
what to say; but God is good, and will in time find an answer to 
this objection.’ The God-given answer came when, in 1611, the 
rude telescope of Galileo showed the phases of Venus. 316 

315 Ibid., pp. 92-93. 

316 Andrew White, A History> of the Warfare of Science with Theology’ in 
Christendom, 1907, p. 130. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Although certain versions of Ptolemy’s system seem to demonstrate 
its inability to account for Venus’ phases, the truth is that these versions no 
more deny the basic model of Ptolemaic geocentrism than the errors in 
Copernicus’ original model (which were based on circles and epicyclets) 
would discount heliocentrism prior to Kepler’s corrections by means of 
ellipses. Upon close inspection of Ferguson’s diagrams, we can understand 
why so many people have been unduly convinced that Ptolemy’s model 
was lacking. Although Ferguson is kind enough to alert her reader that: 
“The distances and size of orbits in this drawing do not reflect the actual 
distances and orbits,” 317 she fails to acknowledge that without accurate 
scales the diagrams prove nothing, except perhaps a bias against Ptolemy. 
Ptolemy, of course, had the same problem, but it was inadvertent. Fie did 
not know the actual distances to the sun, the planets or the moon, and 
consequently Venus suffers the most from this lack of knowledge since its 
epicycle is placed between the sun and the Earth rather than outside the 

Using the same logic, modern heliocentrists often accuse Ptolemy of 
having the moon come too close to the Earth, and thereby appeal to this 
lopsided orbit as convincing evidence to discredit his system. For example, 
Stephen Flawking asserts the following: 

Ptolemy’s model provided a fairly accurate system for predicting 
the positions of heavenly bodies in the sky. But in order to 
predict these positions correctly, Ptolemy had to make an 
assumption that the moon followed a path that sometimes 
brought it twice as close to the earth as at other times. And that 
meant that the moon ought sometimes to appear twice as big as 
at other times! Ptolemy recognized this flaw, but nevertheless his 
model was generally, although not universally accepted. It was 
adopted by the Christian church as the picture of the universe 
that was in accordance with scripture, for it had the great 
advantage that it left lots of room outside the sphere of fixed 
stars for heaven and hell. 318 

Hawking makes his claim, of course, without noting that Ptolemy’s 
model was neither absolute in its distances nor ever adjusted to make it 
correct, in addition to implying that the Catholic Church knew of 
Ptolemy’s alleged error yet had an ulterior motive for insisting that his 

317 Measuring the Universe, p. 93. 

318 Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, A Briefer History’ of Time, 2005, pp. 



Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

model be preserved. The fault, of course, lies in Hawking’s failure to see 
that if Ptolemy’s model had been properly adjusted, it would have shown 
as much accuracy as the best heliocentric model. 

As we noted previously, before Kepler’s improvements to the 
heliocentric model, Copernicus’ system was no more accurate than 
Ptolemy’s, despite the fact that Copernicus used more epicycles than 
Ptolemy. As Copernicus’ model was improved, so were the results of 
calculations to track the orbits of the planets. Yet the same kind of 
corrections could have been made to the Ptolemaic model to improve its 
accuracy, including corrections to account for the phases of Venus. The 
model itself did not have to be scrapped. The distance to the moon and the 
phases of Venus could have been made as prominent and precise as they 
appear in the improved Keplerian model if, instead of Ptolemy’s circles: 
(a) the planetary orbits are made into elliptical paths around the sun 319 ; (b) 
the sun’s orbit around the Earth is made a deferent and the epicycle’s 
radius is made equal to the actual scalar distance between the sun and 
planet; (c) the sun’s motion is placed in one epicycle and the planets’ 
epicycles are centered on the sun; (d) the Earth is lined up with respect to 
the stars rather than with respect to the sun. All four solutions would make 
the paths cycloidal with respect to the Earth and all will account for the 
phases of Venus. Option (c) is essentially the model proposed by Tycho 
Brahe. As astronomer Gerardus Bouw notes: 

Even astronomers and historians who should know better claim 
that Galileo’s discovery that Venus exhibits moon-like phases 
disproved the Ptolemaic model. All that Galileo’s observations 
actually meant insofar as the Ptolemaic model was concerned, 
was that the radii of the epicycles were much larger than had 
previously been suspected; and all that Kepler’s elliptical orbits 

319 Applying elliptical orbits to his model might have been something Ptolemy 
himself once contemplated. As Koestler notes: “A glance at the orbit of Mercury 
in the Ptolemaic system...shows a similar egg-shaped curve staring into one’s 
face” (The Sleepwalkers, pp. 80-81). Others also saw the advantage of elliptical 
orbits for Ptolemy. In 1080, the Spanish-Muslim astronomer Al-Zarqali (aka 
Arzachel) became quite famous for his Toledan Tables, the forerunner of the 
Alfonsine Tables (published in 1252 A.D.), of planetary positions. Originally 
written in Arabic, only two Latin translations have survived. Along with his six 
astrolabes, the Toledan Tables reveal Al-Zarqali was aware of the improvements 
available to the Ptolemaic system by means of elliptical orbits, but at this time in 
history, deference to the perfect circle was simply too strong to be overcome. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

meant to the Ptolemaic model was that two of the epicycles 
could be combined into one ellipse. 320 

Julian Barbour adds: 

The phases of the planets, visible through the telescope, 
especially in the case of Venus, provided strong confirmation of 
the distances that Copernicus had postulated and demonstrated 
beyond all doubt that Venus orbited the sun....Galileo was 
convinced that, in confirming Copernicus’s prediction, these 
observations proved the earth’s mobility. 

But Barbour lets us in on a little known secret of Ptolemy’s model: 

In fact, they were still compatible with what one might call the 
‘essential’ Ptolemaic system....The Ptolemaic theory left six free 
parameters that had to be fixed by guesswork. No violence was 
done to the essentials of the Ptolemaic theory by fixing these in 
such a way that the deferents of Mercury and Venus were taken 
equal to the earth-sun distance and the deferents of the superior 
planets to their actual distances from the sun. This choice has the 
consequence that the geometrical arrangement of the Copemican 
system (when treated as here in the zero-eccentricity 
approximation) is exactly reproduced, the only difference being 
that in one system the earth is at rest, in the other the sun. This in 
fact is the system which Tycho Brahe proposed....As far as 
astronomical observations are concerned, the Tychonic system, 
which is a special case of the Ptolemaic one, is kinematically 
identical to Copernicus’s except in its relation to the distant 
stars. 321 

In other words, the phases of Venus were no proof for the heliocentric 
system. The fact that Ptolemy did not know the distances between the 
heavenly bodies was compensated by the fact that his system incoiporated 
six variables to account for such u nk nown quantities, thus making his 
model very pliable to what would actually be observed in the future. The 
simple fact is, since Copernicus was influenced by many non-scientific 
factors, he chose not to make those adjustments and instead wanted to 

320 Gerardus Bouw, Geocentricity, 1992, pp. 309-310. 

321 Julian B. Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, Vol. 1, The Discovery> of 
Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 224-225, italics his. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

throw the baby out with the bath water, as it were. As it stands, there was a 
lot of room to make adjustments to Ptolemy’s model to fit the 
observations, but no one was willing to do so once Copernicus’ system 
was seized and promoted by the Renaissance and Enlightenment as a 
means to demote the authority of Scripture and take control away from the 
Catholic Church to influence the minds of men. As astronomer Ivan King 
understood it: 

In a single phrase, the God-centered outlook of the middle ages 
had been replaced by the man-centered outlook of the 
renaissance. The change had flowed over every aspect of human 
activity. 322 

Objection #17: Tke Geocentric Model Includes Ether, hut 
Did n’t Einstein’s Theory Eliminate Ether? 

We will touch on this subject briefly here and then cover it in more 
detail in chapters 4 through 10. Suffice it to say, Einstein eliminated ether 
for his theory of Special Relativity in 1905. He did so, by his own 
admission, in order to have an answer for the 1887 Michelson-Morley 
experiment which showed the Earth was motionless in space. 

Special Relativity did not include gravity, however. When in 1915 
Einstein was forced to include gravity and develop his General Theory, he 
took back the ether he eliminated in Special Relativity, although he limited 
its properties and effects and expressed it only as a mathematical 
representation of space (e.g., a metric tensor). 

At around the same time, however, Quantum Mechanics discovered 
that space is not empty but is filled with infinitesimal entities that 
constitute a medium so dense and energetic that it is literally off-the- 
charts. 323 Ether thus returned to modem science, but few admitted that 
science had erred when Einstein had eliminated the ether in 1905. 
Consequently, ether was identified by other names ( e.g ., virtual particles, 
zero-point energy, Higgs field, etc .) so as not to contradict Einstein. In 

322 Ivan R. King, The Universe Unfolding, 1976, p. 126. 

323 According to Sean Carroll at California Technical Institute: “You can add up 
all the effects of these virtual particles.. .and you get infinity.. .So we cut things 
off by saying we will exclude contributions of virtual particles whose energy is 
larger than the Planck scale.. .which we have no right to think we understand 
what’s going on.. .Then you get a finite answer for the vacuum, and answer that is 
bigger than what you observer by a factor of 10 to the 120 th power.” 
( &feature=watch-vrec). 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

fact, since Quantum Mechanics includes physical ether whereas General 
Relativity does not, the two theories are incompatible. String Theory, 
which incoiporates ether, was advanced as the bridge but without much 
success, since it requires multiple dimensions (other than the three we have 
already) to provide even a superficial semblance of unity. 

The fact remains that modern science believes in ether, and though its 
adherents may call it by different names, as Shakespeare said, “that which 
we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” 324 As noted, we 
will cover this subject in much more detail in the remaining chapters 
(especially chapter 6), but for now we will quote from one of modem 
science’s more familiar names, Paul C. W. Davies. In an article for New 
Scientist titled “Liquid Space,” he elaborates on the new ether: 

Is space just space? Or is it filled with some sort of mysterious, 
intangible substance. The ancient Greeks believed so, and so did 
scientists in the 19 th century. Yet by the early part of the 20 th 
century, the idea had been discredited and seemed to have gone 
for good [by Einstein’s interpretation of the Michelson-Morley 
experiment]. Now, however, quantum physics is casting new 
light on this murky subject. Some of the ideas that fell from 
favor are creeping back into modem thought, giving rise to the 
notion of a quantum ether.... 

If so, we’ll have answered a question that has troubled 
philosophers and scientists for millennia. In the 5th century BC, 
Leucippus and Democritus concluded that the physical universe 
was made of tiny particles - atoms moving in a void. Impossible, 
countered the followers of Parmenides. A void implies 
nothingness, and if two atoms were separated by nothing, then 
they would not be separated at all, they would be touching. So 
space cannot exist unless it is filled with something, a substance 
they called the plenum. 

If the plenum exists, it must be quite unlike normal matter. For 
example, Isaac Newton's laws of motion state that a body 
moving through empty space with no forces acting on it will go 
on moving in the same way. So the plenum cannot exert a 
frictional drag - indeed, if it did, the Earth would slow down in 
its orbit and spiral in towards the Sun. 

324 From the play, Romeo and Juliet, II, ii, 1. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Nevertheless, Newton himself was convinced that space was 
some kind of substance. He noted that any body rotating in a 
vacuum - a planet spinning in space, for example - experiences 
a centrifugal force. The Earth bulges slightly at the equator as a 
result. But truly empty space has no landmarks against which to 
gauge rotation. So, thought Newton, there must be something 
invisible lurking there to provide a frame of reference. This 
something, reacting back on the rotating body, creates the 
centrifugal force. 

The 17th century German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz 
disagreed. He believed that all motion is relative, so rotation can 
only be gauged by reference to distant matter in the Universe. 
We know the Earth is spinning because we see the stars go 
round. Take away the rest of the Universe, Leibniz said, and 
there would be no way to tell if the Earth was rotating, and hence 
no centrifugal force. 

The belief that space is filled with some strange, tenuous stuff 
was bolstered in the 19th century. Michael Faraday and James 
Clerk Maxwell considered electric and magnetic fields to be 
stresses in some invisible material medium, which became 
known as the luminiferous ether. Maxwell believed 
electromagnetic waves such as light to be vibrations in the ether. 
And the idea that we are surrounded and interpenetrated by a sort 
of ghostly jelly appealed to the spiritualists of the day, who 
concocted the notion that we each have an etheric body as well 
as a material one. 

But when Albert Michelson and Edward Morley tried to measure 
how fast the Earth is moving through the ether, by comparing the 
speed of light signals going in different directions, the answer 
they got was zero. 

An explanation came from Albert Einstein: the ether simply 
doesn’t exist, and Earth's motion can be considered only relative 
to other material bodies, not to space itself. In fact, no 
experiment can determine a body's speed through space, since 
uniform motion is purely relative, he said. 

Sounds OK so far, but there was one complication: acceleration. 
If you are in an aeroplane flying steadily, you can't tell that 
you're moving relative to the ground unless you look out of the 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

window, just as Einstein asserted. You can pour a drink and sip it 
as comfortably as if you were at rest in your living room. But if 
the plane surges ahead or slows suddenly, you notice at once 
because your drink slops about. So although uniform motion is 
relative, acceleration appears to be absolute: you can detect it 
without reference to other bodies. 

Einstein wanted to explain this inertial effect - what we might 
commonly call g-forces - using the ideas of the Austrian 
philosopher Ernst Mach. Like Leibniz, Mach believed that all 
motion is relative, including acceleration. According to Mach, 
the slopping of your drink in the lurching aeroplane is 
attributable to the influence of all the matter in the Universe—an 
idea that became known as Mach’s principle. Einstein warmed to 
the idea that the gravitational field of the rest of the Universe 
might explain centrifugal and other inertial forces resulting from 

However, when in 1915 Einstein finished formulating his 
general theory of relativity-a theory of space, time and 
gravitation - he was disappointed to find that it did not 
incorporate Mach’s principle. Indeed, mathematician Kurt Godel 
showed in 1948 that one solution to Einstein’s equations 
describes a universe in a state of absolute rotation—something 
that is impossible if rotation can only be relative to distant 
matter. So if acceleration is not defined as relative to distant 
matter, what is it relative to? Some new version of the ether? 

In 1976 I began investigating what quantum mechanics might 
have to say. According to quantum field theory, the vacuum has 
some strange properties. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle 
implies that even in empty space, subatomic particles such as 
electrons and photons are constantly popping into being from 
nowhere, then fading away again almost immediately. This 
means that the quantum vacuum is a seething frolic of 
evanescent “virtual particles.” 

Although these particles lack the permanence of normal matter, 
they can still have a physical influence. For example, a pair of 
mirrors arranged facing one another extremely close together 
will feel a tiny force of attraction, even in a perfect vacuum, 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

because of the way the set-up affects the behaviour of the virtual 
photons. This has been confirmed in many experiments. 

So clearly the quantum vacuum resembles the ether, in the sense 
that there's more there than just nothing. But what exactly is the 
new version of the ether like? You might think that a real particle 
such as an electron moving in this sea of virtual particles would 
have to batter its way through, losing energy and slowing down 
as it goes. Not so. Like the ether of old, the quantum vacuum 
exerts no frictional drag on a particle with constant velocity. 

But it’s a different story with acceleration. The quantum vacuum 
does affect accelerating particles. For example, an electron 
circling an atom is jostled by virtual photons from the vacuum, 
leading to a slight but measurable shift in its energy. 325 

The ether is composed of at least two substances, one at the Planck 
scale (discovered by quantum mechanics) and the other at the atomic scale 
(discovered by experiments on the atomic nucleus). The Planck-scale ether 
(at 10” 33 cm) has little effect on material bodies. 326 It travels right through 
them similar to how neutrinos go through solid matter. In this book we 
give them the name “plancktons.” In contrast to the inside of an atom, they 
are best be pictured by the irregular shapes in the following image: 

325 Paul Davies, “Liquid Space,” New Scientist, Nov. 3, 2001. 

32<1 Planck particles are usually called “virtual particles,” “zero-point energy” 
(ZPE) or “superstrings,” in quantum mechanics since they are under the threshold 
of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. These particles are called “virtual” 
because they are said to pop in and out of the universe each Planck second (10 44 
sec). The “popping” interface is called “spacetime foam.” The high energy and 
randomness in the “popping” predicts things like “wormholes.” Craig Hogan of 
Fermilab is seeking to detect the foam. “Hogan’s interferometer will search for a 
backdrop that is much like the ether—an invisible (and possibly imaginary) 
substrate that permeates the universe. By using two Michelson interferometers 
stacked on top of each other, he intends to probe the smallest scales in the 
universe, the distance at which both quantum mechanics and relativity break 
down—the region where information lives as bits. The planck scale is not just 
small—it is the smallest.” See Scientific American, February 2012, pp. 32-36, and 
arXiv:1002.4880v27, 7 Feb 2012. Geocentric theory says Planck particles are real 
and do not pop in and out; the lack of “wormholes” being prima facie evidence. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Figure 1: The Planck ether at 10 _33 cm is represented by the irregular 
shapes in the background. It permeates all substances, including the 
atom and its constituent parts, which have dimensions between 
10 13 cm to 10 ’em. 

The second type of ether is on the atomic scale and is composed of 
electron-positron pairs, which we call electropons. Their dimensions are 
on the order of 10 13 cm. 327 Both the planckton and electropon ethers 
constitute space, but the planckton ether penetrates all material substance, 
including the atom. As we have seen partially in this chapter and will see 
in much more detail in later chapters, it is these ethers which serve as the 
mediums for all motion, inertial forces, gravity and electromagnetism. 

327 As we will develop more in Chapter 6, in 1932, Carl Anderson discovered that 
when gamma radiation of 1.022 million electron volts (MeV) was discharged in 
any point of space, an electron and positron emerged from that point. He also 
found that when an electron collides with a positron, the two particles become 
imperceptible and produce two gamma-ray quanta which disperse in opposite 
directions, but with a combined energy of 1.022 MeV. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Fig. 2 : The electron-positron pairings form a net or lattice in space. 

Objection #18: Isn’t it Impossible for tbe Stars to 
Travel so Fast Around tbe Eartb? 

Another common objection to placing the Earth in the center of our 
local system is that it would also need to be in the center of the universe, 
and thus, it would be impossible for the stars, being so far away, to revolve 
around the Earth on a daily basis, since they would be required to travel 
faster than the speed of light to complete their daily trek. As with all the 
objections in this section, we will answer them in more detail in later 
chapters, but for now we can respond in two ways. First, even assuming 
for the sake of argument that geocentrism holds that the stars travel faster 
than light (which it does not); still, those who base their objections on the 
tenets of modem science have little room to mount criticism. As a popular 
scientist explains, in Relativity theory: 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism is permissible to assume that the Earth is a nonrotating 
frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a 
circular velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the 
speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative 
velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of 
light. 328 

A more technical book on Relativity written for the scientist admits 

the same: 

Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars 
would have...linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10 8 m/sec, the 
terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears 
to be a contradiction...that the velocities of all material bodies 
must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction 
u < c - 3 x 10 s m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special 
Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to 
choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of 
space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a 
reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c.... If 
gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material 
bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on 
the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the 
rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational 
field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is 
consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities 
of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10 8 m/sec under these 
conditions. 329 

Einstein himself admitted this very principle: 

In the second place our result shows that, according to the 
general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the 
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two 
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and 
to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any 
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take 
place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with 

328 Martin Gardner, Relativity Explosion, 1976, p. 68. 

329 An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William Geraint Vaughn Rosser, 
1964, p. 460. Rosser was the senior lecturer in Physics at Exeter University. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the 
special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of 
relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the 
case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity 
cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold 
only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of 
gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light). 310 

Hence, according to Einstein’s own words, a limitation on the speed 
of light is only true when gravity does not affect the light, or, as a corollary 
point, variations in the gravitational field will allow variations in the speed 
of light. Since in a rotating universe the gravitational force increases in 
proportion to the radial distance from Earth, consequently, the farther the 
distance, the faster light will be able to travel. As we will see many times 
in this book, the principles of General Relativity invariably support a 
geocentric universe. 

Another aspect of General Relativity that is directly related to 
whether something can travel faster than light is the so-called “expansion 
of space” in the Big Bang theory. According to the theory, the universe has 
always been expanding faster than the speed of light. The first phase came 
with what is known as “inflation” in which the universe came into being 
from an infinitesimally small point and blew out into trillions of miles of 
space in trillionths of a second. As Stephen Hawking describes it: 

.. .during this cosmic inflation, the universe expanded by a factor 
of 1 x 10 30 in 1 x 10 35 seconds. It was as if a coin 1 centimeter 
in diameter suddenly blew up to ten million times the width of 
the Milky Way. That may seem to violate relativity, which 
dictates that nothing can move faster than light, but that speed 
limit does not apply to the expansion of space itself... .physicists 
aren’t sure how inflation happened....But if you go far enough 
back in time, the universe was as small as the Planck size, a 
billion-trillion-trillionth of a centimeter.. , 331 

330 Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, 1920, p. 76; 
Methuen, London; Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General 
Theory, authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, 1961, p. 85. In his first 
paper on General Relativity in 1912, Einstein stated: “the constancy of the 
velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio- 
temporal regions of constant gravitational potential...” (Albert Einstein, 1912, 
Anallen Physik 38, 1059). 

331 The Grand Design, pp. 129-131. The theorists hold that the Big Bang started 
13.5 billion years ago in the Planck dimensions from a volume of 10' 4tl cubic 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

After the initial inflation, the universe slowed down to an 
“expansion,” but which is also proceeding much faster than the speed of 
light. 312 The explanation for this apparent anomaly is that it is not the 
material substance of the universe that is expanding but only its “space,” 
whatever that is. In fact modem science has a number of reasons why it 
believes various entities can, indeed, go faster than light - all, of course, 
being disclaimed as ‘not defying the Special Theory of Relativity.’ 333 But 
for the sake of argument, let’s limit the discussion to “space” expansion. If 
space is expanding faster than light, why can’t space rotate faster than 
light? There is simply no reason why the edge of the universe could not 

centimeters with a diameter of 3.14 x 10" 13 centimeters, and was filled with 
particles of 1.62 * 10" 33 centimeters packed solidly and having a density of 4.22 x 
10 93 , and a gravitational attraction between each particle of 1.3 x 10 49 dynes 
(roughly 10 46 greater than Earth’s gravity). These theorists conveniently choose 
the Planck dimensions in order to avoid the infinite dimensions demanded by a 
singularity. The advocates postulate that a group of these Planck particles 
numbering 10 6 ° spontaneously broke away, creating a hole of 3.14 x 10" 13 
centimeters in diameter but which was filled in 2 x 10" 23 seconds. For some 
unexplained reason, the implosion does not reabsorb the 10 6 ° particles (even 
though the gravitational attraction is immense), and the 10 6 ° Planck particles do 
not remember that they are supposed to cease existing in 4 x 10" 44 seconds but 
keep expanding into what we now have as the present universe (satirically 
described by G. Bouw in The Biblical Astronomer, vol. 12, no. 99 & vol. 13, no. 
104, 2002). For the record, other physicists say that Inflation occurred by a factor 
of 10 50 in 10 30 seconds, but with numbers this large, who is counting? 


333 From Wikipedia: “There are many galaxies visible in telescopes with red shift 
numbers of 1.4 or higher. All of these are currently traveling away from us at 
speeds greater than the speed of light....general relativity does allow the space 
between distant objects to expand in such a way that they have a “recession 
velocity” which exceeds the speed of light, and it is thought that galaxies which 
are at a distance of more than about 14 billion light years from us today have a 
recession velocity which is faster than light” ( 
than-light); “While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from 
moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such 
theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two 
very distant objects to be expanding away from each other at a speed greater than 
the speed of light.... Over time, the space that makes up the universe is 
expanding. The words ‘space’ and ‘universe’, sometimes used interchangeably, 
have distinct meanings in this context. Here ‘space’ is a mathematical concept and 
‘universe’ refers to all the matter and energy that exist. The expansion of space is 
in reference to internal dimensions only; that is, the description involves no 
structures such as extra dimensions or an exterior universe” (http://en. of space). 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

rotate at any speed above light if, indeed, modem physics allows it to 
expand at any speed above light. The only difference is that one path is 
curved and the other is linear. 

Tke Effect of tlie 1887 Mickelson -Morley Experiment 

This takes us to another issue concerning the speed of light: what do 
some modem physicists mean when they say that something cannot exceed 
the speed of light? It’s not what you might logically think. Normally we 
would interpret the light speed barrier as an inherent property of nature in 
which, all things being equal, a material object cannot reach the speed of 
light, since it would actually need to be light in order to travel as fast as 
light. But this is not how Relativity theory explains it. In a manner of 
speaking, modem scientists have determined that ‘all things are not equal.’ 
The ‘inequality’ was invented when science had a very difficult time 
explaining the result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. As we 
noted earlier (and will investigate in much more detail in later chapters), in 
order to provide modem science an escape from having to conclude that 
the Earth was motionless in space, various scientists explained the 
Michelson-Morley experiment by postulating that matter compresses when 
it moves. They committed the most egregious fallacy in logic, petitio 
principii : using as proof that which they had not first proven. To put it 
bluntly, they assumed the Earth was moving as the basis to inteipret an 
experiment that showed the Earth wasn’t moving. As one of the world’s 
premier physicists of that day, Arthur Eddington, put it: 

But it now appears that the allowance made for the motion of the 
observer has hitherto been too crude - a fact overlooked because 
in practice all observers share nearly the same motion, that of 
the Earth. Physical space and time are found to be closely bound 
up with this motion of the observer. 334 

334 Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General 
Relativity Theory, 1923, p. v. Interestingly enough, Eddington later decries man’s 
tendency to assume certain things as true which have not been proven. He writes: 
“Now the most dangerous hypotheses are those which are tacit and unconscious. 
So the standpoint of relativity proposes tentatively to do without these hypotheses 
(not making any others in their place); and it discovers that they are quite 
unnecessary and are not supported by any known fact” (ibid., p. 28). 
Unfortunately, Eddington failed to see a moving Earth as one of those beliefs “not 
supported by any known fact.” In various other places, Eddington confirms our 
suspicions of his predisposition: “It is well to remember that there is reasonable 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

In this case, Michelson’s sensitive instruments, specifically designed 
to detect the Earth’s motion, were said to register a “null” result for such 
an effect because, due to the pressure generated by the assumed orbit of 
the Earth, the instruments were said to shrink during the course of the 
experiment. As Eddington put it: “This would mean that the Earth’s 
diameter in the direction of its motion is shortened by 2 l A inches.” 335 
Having no other way to prohibit the Earth from being motionless in space, 
most scientists succumbed to the “shrinking matter” hypothesis, and soon 
it became standard fare in the world of physics. It was dubbed as the 
“Fitzgerald contraction,” and later made into an equation called the 
“Lorentz transformation .” 336 

justification for adopting the principle of relativity even if the evidence is 
insufficient to prove it” (ibid., p. 21). 

335 Space, Time and Gravitation, p. 20. He continues with the same question¬ 
begging logic in the next sentence: “The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus 
failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for - the 
delay of one of the light waves - is exactly compensated by an automatic 
contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.” 

336 In the equation, L' = L^/l — p 2 /c 2 , L' is the length of the object in motion 
after it is adjusted by the transform jl — v 2 /c 2 . Where v = the velocity of the 
object moving and c = the speed of light. (For a mathematical calculator that 
shows the Lorentz contraction and the Einstein time dilation see: /hbase/relativ/tdil.html). Lorentz created the 
transform in order to answer the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein, also 
forced by Michelson-Morley, included time in the equation T = T/yl — v 2 /c 2 , 
although here time is divided by the Lorentz transform instead of multiplied since 
the time is measured from the perspective of the moving clock, not the fixed 
clock. Changing time also led to changing the mass since inertial mass had to 
increase for the moving object to M' = M/^Jl — t? 2 /c 2 , which also led to 
shortening the distance the object traveled: D' = D^J 1 — v 2 /c 2 . Einstein fully 
admitted his use of the Lorentz transform: “The term relativity refers to time and 
space....This led the Dutch professor, Lorentz, and myself to develop the special 
theory of relativity” (Lorentz, The Einstein Theory of Relativity, 1920, pp. 11-12). 
Abraham Pais notes of his interview with Einstein: “As he told me more than 
once, without Lorentz he would never have been able to make the discovery of 
special relativity” (Pais, Subtle is the Lord, 1982, p. 13). In 1912, Einstein 
admitted: “To fill this gap, 1 introduced the principle of the constancy of the 
velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz’s theory of the stationary 
luminiferous ether...” (“Relativity and Gravitation: Reply to a Comment by M. 
Abraham,” translated by A. Beck, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 4. 
Doc. 8, 1996, p. 131). In 1935, Einstein admitted again: “...the Lorentz 
transformation, the real basis of the special relativity theory, in itself has nothing 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

The “Lorentz Transform” 
L’ = L^jl-v 2 /c 2 

How Did Lorentz Arrive at his “Transform” 

Lorentz arrived at his “transform” equation by a very simple means. He used 
the Pythagorean theorem regarding a right triangle. Here’s how: 

to do with the Maxwell theory.” (“Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of 
Mass and Energy,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, Series 2, Vol. 
41, 1935, p. 230). Although here Einstein is saying that only Michelson-Morley 
led to Special Relativity, we must point out that Maxwell’s equations are not 
general and invariant since they only work in a uniform ether at rest. In order to 
make Maxwell’s equations invariant for other frames of reference, the Lorentz 
transform is employed, which then allows Einstein to eliminate Maxwell’s ether 
from Special Relativity. The difference between Einstein’s version and Lorentz’s 
version of the transform is explained by Lorentz as: “The experimental results 
could be accounted for by transforming the co-ordinates in a certain manner from 
one system of co-ordinates to another. A transformation of time was also 
necessary. So I introduced the conception of local time, which is different for 
different systems of reference which are in motion relative to each other. But I 
never thought that this had anything to do with real time. This real time for me 
was still represented by the old classical notion of an absolute time, which is 
independent of any reference to special frames of co-ordinates. There existed for 
me only this one true time. I considered my time transformation only as a heuristic 
working hypothesis. So the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein’s work. 
And there can be no doubt that he would have conceived it even if the work of all 
his predecessors in the theory of this field had not been done at all. His work is, in 
this respect, independent of the previous theories” (“Conference on the 
Michelson-Morley Experiment,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 68, No. 5, Dec. 
1928, p. 350). Historian Edmund Whittaker, however, believes that Lorentz and 
Poincare were the creators of Relativity (A History of the Theories of Ether and 
Electricity, vol. 1-2, 1953, pp. 27-77). 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 
A light beam is traveling between point A and point B in one second: 

Point B 

Point A 

Next, Point B moves to the right while the light from Point A is 
moving toward Point B. Since the path is longer, it will take more 
than one second to reach B: 

Point B 





Point A 

To measure the alleged time decrease or length decrease, a right 
angle is made between Point A and Point B 

_v_Point B 


a | / 

/ c 

| / 

Point A 

The hypoteneuse is labeled c. The shorter line is labeled v. The 
other line is labeled a. The Pythagorean theorem says that the 
square of c is equal to the square of a + the square of v. Thus we 

222 *2 • 222 

c = a“ + v~ or we can bring v on the other side for c — v = a 

Or we can say the square root of c 2 - v 2 = a 

Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Thus a 

- v 


• If we take out c from the radical we have: 

a = c 1 

• This is the basic form of the Lorentz contraction equation for 
Length (L) and Time (T), which is: 

Li = L 


• For Mass increase, the equation is inverted: 

Mi = M- 

Out of desperation, it was so readily accepted that it became the pat 
answer to every motion problem in physics. Among those answers was 
why no object could ever reach the speed of light. As physicist Arthur 
Eddington explains it: 

It is no use trying to overtake a flash of light; however fast you 
go it is always traveling away from you at 186,000 miles a 
second. Now from one point of view this is a rather unworthy 
deception that Nature has practiced upon us. Let us take our 
favourite observer who travels at 161,000 miles a second and 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

send him in pursuit of the flash of light. It is going 25,000 miles 
a second faster than he is; but that is not what he will report. 
Owing to the contraction of his standard scale his miles are only 
half-miles; owing to the slowing down of his clocks his seconds 
are double-seconds. His measurement would therefore make the 
speed 100,000 miles a second (really half-miles per double- 
second). He makes a further mistake in synchronizing the clocks 
with which he records the velocity....This brings the speed up to 
186,000 miles a second. From his own point of view the traveler 
is lagging hopelessly behind the light; he does not realize what a 
close race he is making of it, because his measuring appliances 
have been upset. 337 

So here we see that the “traveler” is, as Eddington admits, coming 
close to, and could possibly match, the speed of light, but because his 
instruments have shrunk and his clock moves slower due to his excessive 
speed, it will only appear as if it is impossible to catch the light beam. 
Welcome to the bizarre world of Relativity. On the stage is reality versus 
illusion, but by the very nature of its principles, Relativity is at a loss to 
tell us which part is reality and which part is illusion. Perhaps this is why 
Eddington had few qualms once referring to the Lorentz contraction as: 
“The shortening of the moving rod is true, but it is not really true ,” 338 Of 
course, we need to remind ourselves that the so-called ‘shrinking of the 
instruments’ and ‘slowing of the clock’ is all the result of the fallacious 
interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, an interpretation that 
was forced upon the science establishment in order to keep the Earth from 
being motionless in space. To this very day, no scientist in the world has 
ever explained, let alone proven, the precise physical reason why matter 
should shrink in length when it moves, or how time can dilate in the 
process, yet they believe it nonetheless, for, as we will see later, it is their 
only defense against going back to pre-Copemican days. Later we will also 
see when we cover the 1913 Sagnac and 1925 Michelson-Gale 
interferometer experiments that were designed to measure absolute 
rotation between the Earth and the universe, suddenly the Lorentz 
transform, previously the determining factor to interpret all other 
interferometer experiments, is totally missing from Einstein’s analysis. 

We can also answer the objection by noting that, although it is to our 
advantage to use modem physics against itself as we do when we point out 

337 Sir Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World , from the 1927 Gifford 
Lectures, 1929, p. 54. All spellings of words in the quote are from Eddington’s 

338 Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, pp. 33-34. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

that General Relativity permits a body to move faster than the speed of 
light, the celestial mechanics of geocentrism, in fact, does not claim that 
the stars move faster than light. Geocentrism says that the universe rotates 
around the Earth once per day, and in that rotation it carries the stars with 
it. Thus, compared to the universe within which they are contained, the 
stars are not moving at all, save for the minuscule movements of their 
proper motion. 

As we saw earlier, the universe is composed of an infinitesimal 
substance on the Planck scale, which Quantum Mechanics postulates is at 
least 10 120 more dense and energetic than ordinary matter. Since that is the 
case, the universe could spin thousands of times faster than it does 
presently in about 24 hours and still remain stable. 

Additionally, the rotation of the universe is an integral facet of the 
geocentric system so as to act as a counterbalance to the inward pressure 
of gravity. It just so happens that the centrifugal force created in the ether 
medium by a 24-hour rotation period prohibits the stars and other material 
in the universe from collapsing inward (a problem, incidentally, that 
Newton and Einstein recognized in their respective universes, and which 
Newton attempted to answer by opting for an infinite universe, and 
Einstein by his infamous “cosmological constant,” neither of which 
provided an adequate solution). An advocate of Relativity can raise no 
objections against geocentrism’s rotating universe since Relativity sees no 
difference, or has no way to distinguish between, a rotating Earth among 
fixed stars or stars that revolve around a fixed Earth. The two are 
relativistically equivalent. 

Objection #19: Doesn’t Redskift Contradict a 
Smaller and Younger Universe? 

Even assuming that redshift is an indicator of age, velocity or 
distance, it is interesting to see what happens when we use Big Bang 
cosmology’s very own formula for measuring the age and distance of 
celestial objects. The age is calculated by the formula t = t 0 (1 + z)“ 3/2 , 
where to is the current age of the universe and z is the redshift factor of the 
object. 339 Most of modem cosmology believes the universe began during a 

339 This z-factor formula is based on the so-called “dust model” of the universe 
wherein the major components of the universe do not exert any pressure on their 
surroundings. But if one were to base the z-factor on the radiation of the CMB in 
terms of number of particles, the formula would be t = to (1 + z)' 2 . This again, 
shows the complete arbitrariness of the formulas since they invariably depend on 
one’s unproven assumptions. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Big Bang, and using their own assumptions and scale factors, it believes 
that this seminal event occurred 13.7 billion years ago, at least according 
to the latest data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy 
Probe. 340 Let’s say NASA finds a distant object in the sky and assigns it a 
z-factor of 1. NASA will then plug in the value for t 0 as 13.7 billion years 
and will compute a value for t, which is understood as the age of the 
universe when the radiation emission of the distant celestial object took 
place. In the case where z = 1 then t = 4,844,413,013 years. Since using the 
number 13.7 billion years is completely arbitrary (for it is based on the 
unproven Big Bang assumptions of the universe), let’s say we assume to is 
6,000 years instead of 13.7 billion. In this case, where z = 1 then t = 2,121 
years. In other words, when an astronomer sees a star with a z-factor of 1, 
he might just as well assume the universe was 2,121 years old rather than 
4.8 billion years old, since the z-factor is only a function of one’s 
assumption regarding the beginning of the universe. If an astronomer finds 
an even more distant object that correlates to a z factor of 2, then the age of 
the universe when the object began radiating was 1,154 on the biblical 
scale but 2.6 billion years on the Big Bang scale. 

Of course, the biblicist does not interpret either the 2,121 years or 
1,154 years as the different times that two stars were created, for he holds, 
on a dogmatic basis, that all the stars were created on the same day. It only 
means that, as the firmament expanded and carried the variously placed 
stars within it, their wavelength would be stretched by their medium, the 
firmament, in proportion to the distance they were originally placed from 
Earth. (See ICo 15:41, which teaches that “star differs from star in glory,” 
presumably because of their specific composition and purpose, which 
required them to be placed at different distances from the Earth). Thus, if 
we were to understand redshift as a distance indicator, what we see as 
differences in redshift values today is merely the result of the differences 
of the original placement of the stars on the Fourth day of creation. The 

340 According to Stephen Hawking, “...for us to exist the universe must contain 
elements such as carbon, which are produced by cooking lighter elements inside 
stars. The carbon must then be scattered through space in a supernova explosion, 
and eventually condense as part of a planet in a new-generation solar system. In 
1961 physicist Robert Dicke argued that the process takes about 10 billion years, 
so our being here means that the universe must be at least that old. On the other 
hand, the universe cannot be much older than 10 billion years, since in the far 
future all the fuel for stars will have been used up, and we require hot stars for our 
sustenance. Hence the universe must be about 10 billion years old. That is not an 
extremely precise prediction, but it is true - according to current data the big bang 
occurred about 13.7 billion years ago” (The Grand Design, 2010, p. 154). 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

stars that were placed closer to Earth will now exhibit lower redshift 
values today, and vice-versa for the stars placed farther away. 

Interestingly enough, if we use modem science’s formula for 
measuring the age of the universe when the cosmic microwave background 
radiation (CMB) was released, we get very close to the time we have 
predicted that the firmament would create the 2.73° Kelvin temperature. 
The formula is T = T 0 (1 + z)' 3/2 . Plugging in a z-factor of 1089 for the 
CMB, the Big Bang theory arrives at a universe age of 380,711 years after 
the primordial explosion for the arrival of the CMB, whereas using the 
same z-factor the biblicist obtains 0.16672 years, which puts the CMB well 
within the first two months of the first year of creation and after the fall of 
man when, as we will see in Volume III, Chapter 16, according to 
Hildegard, the universe began rotating and the firmament needed to be 
cooled to 2.73° Kelvin. 

Objection #20: Don’t tke Gl obal Positioning Satellites Prove 
Relativity and Deny Geocentrism? 

There is a lot of talk today that the Global Positioning Satellites 
(GPS) prove both the Special and General theories of Relativity, with the 
corollary point that the GPS are pre-programmed for an Earth that is 
rotating on an axis and revolving around the sun. The truth is, the Special 
and General theories of Relativity are disproven by the GPS; and the GPS 
use a non-moving Earth as its base for the mathematical calculations that 
keep the GPS working properly. 

The GPS system is approximately 24,000 km (app. 14,900 miles), 
above the Earth. When an electromagnetic signal is sent from the ground 
station to the GPS, the signal takes 0.080 seconds to arrive based on the 
terrestrial speed of light at 186,000 miles per second. 

To keep the GPS within at least a meter of determining a designated 
location on Earth, the GPS clock must be accurate to within 4 
nanoseconds, which requires a time stability ratio on the order of 1:10°, 
and thus atomic clocks are employed for this purpose ( e.g ., cesium clocks). 
Still, the GPS requires frequent uploads of “clock corrections” to keep 
everything in synch. Even when making adjustments for the Doppler effect 
and gravitational redshift, there still remains a margin of error. If these 
factors are not taken into account, a GPS could be off by as much as 11 km 
(6.8 miles) in one day. 

More interesting is the fact that since the whole GPS system is 
revolving around the Earth, the signals sent from the ground arrive either 
at an approaching or a receding GPS satellite. As such, the microwave 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

beams sent to an approaching GPS satellite take 50 nanoseconds less time 
to reach the satellite than beams sent to a receding satellite. The 50- 
nanosecond difference is built into the computer programs of the GPS 
since each satellite must, without exception, take into account the Sagnac 
effect (i.e., that electromagnetic waves in a moving device do not travel 
the same distance in the same time if they are sent out in opposite 
directions) in order for the GPS to keep accurate time and determine 
proper coordinates on Earth. Although the Sagnac effect will be covered 
more in detail in chapter 5, suffice it to say for now it demonstrates that 
electromagnetic beams traveling in opposite directions will not travel at 
the same speed. The GPS engineers admit this fact. As one states it: 

One of the most confusing relativistic effects - the Sagnac effect 
- appears in rotating reference frames. The Sagnac effect is the 
basis of ring-laser gyroscopes now commonly used in aircraft 
navigation. In the GPS, the Sagnac effect can produce 
discrepancies amounting to hundreds of nanoseconds/ 41 

The Sagnac effect is particularly important when GPS signals are 
used to compare times of primary reference cesium clocks at 
national standards laboratories far from each other....A Sagnac 
correction is needed to account for the diurnal motion of each 
receiver during signal propagation. In fact, one can use the GPS 
to observe the Sagnac effect. 342 

In another paragraph the technician, Neil Ashby, explains why the 
Sagnac effect occurs: 

...this creates some subtle conceptual problems 
that must be carefully sorted out...For example, 
the principle of the constancy of c [speed of light] 
cannot be applied in a rotating reference frame, 
where the paths of light rays are not straight. 343 

Although Ashby is somewhat forthcoming in his article concerning the 
difficulty the GPS has with the Sagnac effect, what he doesn’t reveal is 
that since the GPS computers are pre-programmed to take account of the 
Sagnac effect, it is misleading for him or his colleagues to then claim that 

j41 Neil Ashby, “Relativity and the Global Positioning System,” Physics Today, 
May 2002, p. 5. 

342 Ibid., p. 6. Ronald Hatch notes: “all high precision GPS applications correct for 
the Sagnac effect” (“Relativity and GPS,” Galilean Electrodynamics, 6, 3, 1995). 

343 Ibid., p. 5. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

the GPS is a demonstration of either Special or General Relativity, as he 
states in the following paragraph: 

Relativistic coordinate time is deeply embedded in the GPS. 
Millions of receivers have software that applies relativistic 
corrections. Orbiting GPS clocks have been modified to more 
closely realize coordinate time. Ordinary users of the GPS, 
through they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become 
dependent on Einstein’s conception of space and time. 344 

Another popular Relativity writer puts it this way: 

GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates 
of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections 
into the computer chips which solve for the user’s location. 
Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its 
navigational functions within about 2 minutes. 345 
Propping up Special Relativity and dismissing the GPS’s difficulty 
with the Sagnac effect is accomplished by claiming, as Ashby puts it, that 

In the rotating frame of reference, light will not appear to go in 
all directions in straight lines with speed c. The frame is not an 
inertial frame, so the principle of the constancy of the speed of 
light does not strictly apply. Instead, electromagnetic signals 

** Ibid., p. 10. 

345 Clifford M. Will, “Einstein’s Relativity and Everyday Life,” http://www. /will.cfm. See also Scientific American, Philip 
Yam’s article titled “Everyday Einstein,” September 2004, p. 54: “Today most 
store-bought GPS receivers can pin down your position to within about 15 meters. 
Accuracy of less than 30 meters, notes physicist Neil Ashby of the University of 
Colorado at Boulder, assuredly means that a GPS receiver incorporates relativity. 
‘If you didn’t take relativity into account, then the clocks up there would not be in 
sync with the clocks down here,’ elaborates Clifford Will....Relativity states that 
fast-moving objects age more slowly than stationary ones. Each GPS satellite zips 
along at about 14,000 kilometers per hour, meaning that its onboard atomic clock 
lags the pace of clocks on the earth by about seven microseconds per day, Will 
calculates. Gravity, however, exerts a greater relativistic effect on timing. At an 
average of 20,000 kilometers up, the GPS satellites experience one fourth of the 
gravitational pull they would on the ground. As a result, onboard clocks inn faster 
by 45 microseconds per day. An overall offset of 38 microseconds thus has to be 
figured into GPS.” 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

traversing a closed path will take a different amount of time to 
complete the circuit. 346 

Much of this selective approach to dealing with the mechanics of the 
GPS will probably go unnoticed by the general public except for the fact 
that its anomalies sooner or later need to be dealt with in everyday life. For 
example, farmers use the GPS to guide their tractors over fields. The 
farmers hire companies that specialize in writing computer programs for 
their tractors that coordinates with the GPS system. One such company is 
NavCom Technology Inc. in California. 347 According to its leading 
physicist, Ronald Hatch, it is apparent that Ashby’s dealing with the 
Sagnac effect is fallacious. He writes: 

In point of fact, rotation is only incidentally involved with the 
Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic 
speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring 
instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the 
isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect 
runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by 
postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the 
speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. 

And this is where the special theory is in error—the Sagnac 
effect illustrates that error. 348 

346 “Relativity and GPS,” Part I, Galilean Electrodynamics, 6, 3, 1995. 


348 “Relativity and GPS,” Part I, Galilean Electrodynamics, 6, 3, 1995. Hatch 
continues: “Since relativists do not like to admit that non-isotropic light speed 
exists, they attempt to explain the effect by other mechanisms. The most 
commonly referenced paper on the Sagnac effect is by E. J. Post. He claims: 
‘Thus in order to account for the asymmetry [between the clockwise and 
counterclockwise beams] one has to assume that either the Gaussian field 
identification does not hold in a rotating frame or that the Maxwell equations are 
affected by rotation. All existing evidence for the treatment of non-reciprocal 
phenomena in material media points in the direction of modified constitutive 
relations, not in modified Maxwell equations.’ Thus, Post claims the effect is 
caused by some underlying property of space which arises during rotation. As we 
shall see, this is an inadequate explanation. To his credit. Post also said: ‘The 
search for a physically meaningful transformation for rotation is not aided in any 
way whatever by the principle of general space-time covariance, nor is it true that 
the space-time theory of gravitation plays any direct role in establishing physically 
correct transformations.’ In this quote. Post clearly excludes the general theory as 
a source of explanation for the Sagnac effect.” 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Special Relativity (SRT) claims the Sagnac effect is due to the 
rotation. Since rotation is not relative, the Sagnac effect can be 
due to non-isotropic light speed [i.e., varying light speed] and 
still be consistent with Special Relativity. The effect of the 
movement of the receiver during the transit time of a GPS signal 
is referred to in the GPS system as the one-way Sagnac effect. 
However, it is not at all evident that the Sagnac effect is due to 
rotation...the Sagnac effect exists not only in circular motion, 
but also in translational motion. 349 

This observation validates Ives’ claim that the Sagnac effect is 
not caused by rotation. In 1938 Ives showed by analysis that the 
measured Sagnac effect would be unchanged if the Sagnac phase 
detector were moved along a cord of a hexagon-shaped light path 
rather than rotating the entire structure. Thus, he showed the 
effect could be induced without rotation or acceleration. 350 

In other words. Special Relativity is not exempt from maintaining its 
principle postulate (i.e., that the speed of light is constant) when rotation is 
involved since the Sagnac effect does not depend on rotation. This is a 
clear case of GPS engineers trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. 

Hatch further states: 

We have even more convincing data that Ashby’s claim is false. 
NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed by 
the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical 
reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame. Because 
of some discrepancies between our standard earth-centered earth- 
fixed solution results and the JPL results, we investigated the 
input parameters to the solution very carefully. The measured 
and theoretical ranges computed in the two different frames 
agreed precisely, indicating that the Sagnac correction had been 
applied in each frame. 

349 Ruyong Wang and Ronald R. Hatch, Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the 
Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, ION GPS 58th Annual Meeting / 
CIGTF 21st Guidance Test Symposium, 2002, p. 500. Hatch is a former president 
of the Institute of Navigation and current Director of Navigation Systems 
Engineering of NavCom Technologies. He has spent his whole career as a leader 
in satellite navigation systems and is one of the world’s foremost authorities on 
the GPS. He also holds many patents on GPS-related hardware. 

350 “Relativity and GPS,” Part I, Galilean Electrodynamics, 6, 3, 1995. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

In other words, JPL technicians pre-program the GPS computers with 
the Sagnac effect in order to compensate for a speed of light that varies 
between advancing and receding satellites in the GPS system. 

As the discussion of the Sagnac effect indicates, the fundamental 
question regarding the speed of light is the following: Is the 
speed of light constant with respect to the observer (receiver) or 
is it constant with respect to the chosen inertial ECI frame? 
Clearly the GPS range equation indicates the speed of light is 
constant with respect to the chosen frame....The JPL equations, 
used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that 
the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame. In the JPL 
equations, the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric 
frame....Clearly, the JPL equations treat the speed of light as 
constant with respect to the frame - not as constant with respect 
to the receivers. 351 

In other words, contrary to the claims of Special Relativity, the speed 
of light is not constant with respect to all observers. The speed of light is 
not c but c + v or c - v, which explains why there is a 50 nanosecond 
difference from electromagnetic beams sent from GPS ground stations to 
receding or advancing GPS satellites, respectively. In the end, the GPS 
does not support Special Relativity. 

Interestingly enough, advocates of Relativity theory employ the same 
fudge factor for the Sagnac effect that they do with the Michelson-Morley 
effect - the handy mathematical fix-it called the “Lorentz transform,” 
invented in the late 1800s to allow modem science to escape the evidence 
revealing the Earth was motionless in space. As Hatch notes: 

Thus, with the help of this additional postulate, acceleration 
within the special theory can be handled by successive 
infinitesimal Lorentz transformations (Lorentz boosts)....It is not 
valid to perform instantaneous Lorentz boosts per the special 
theory to keep the speed of light isotropic with respect to the 
Sagnac phase detector. The Sagnac effect on GPS signals in 
transit proves that the special theory magic does not keep the 
light speed isotropic relative to the moving receiver. 352 

351 Ibid., p. 500. 

352 Ibid., Hatch adds: “ Sagnac effect can be expected. Specifically, since the 
detector is always in an instantaneous inertial frame (with isotropic light speed), 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

What, then, is the reason for the 50 nanosecond difference between 
moving GPS satellites, and why, for example, do atomic clocks tick faster 
at higher altitudes? It is the same reason why Michelson-Morley in 1887 
and Georges Sagnac in 1913 saw corresponding effects in their 
independent experiments. The effects were caused by the presence of 
ether. When electromagnetic waves move through ether, whether they 
move rotationally or linearly, they will be impeded to a certain degree. In 
the case of the GPS, it is a 50 nanosecond difference. Relativity theory 
seeks to compensate for the 50 nanosecond difference by changing the 
dimensions, the mass, the space, and the time between GPS satellites. But 
the Sagnac effect simply will not support such manipulation of nature’s 
essences. It is precisely because these essences cannot be changed that the 
GPS system is pre-programmed with the Sagnac effect before launch. In 
reality, moving clocks run slower simply because they meet resistance 
from the ether, the very ether Relativity theory denies. As Hatch notes: 
“The general theory ascribes a change in the rate at which clocks run to a 
change in the flow of time. By contrast, the ether theory ascribes the clock 
rate-change to an environmental effect.” 153 

The reason that the speed of light in the Earth’s atmosphere is either c 
+ v or c - v is due to the ether which rotates around the Earth, east to west, 
with the rest of the universe on a 23 hour, 56 minute and 4 second sidereal 
rate. Hence, GPS electromagnetic signals sent east-to-west travel at c + v; 

the velocity of light arriving at the detector from both directions ought to be the 
same at all times.” 

353 “Relativity and GPS,” Part I, Galilean Electrodynamics, 6, 3, 1995. Relativists 
are divided as to whether General Relativity can explain the Sagnac effect. E. J. 
Post says no; it is due to some physical aspect of space itself: “Thus in order to 
account for the asymmetry [between the clockwise and counterclockwise beams] 
one has to assume that either the Gaussian field identification does not hold in a 
rotating frame or that the Maxwell equations are affected by rotation. All existing 
evidence for the treatment of non-reciprocal phenomena in material media points 
in the direction of modified constitutive relations, not in modified Maxwell 
equations....The search for a physically meaningful transformation for rotation is 
not aided in any way whatever by the principle of general space-time covariance, 
nor is it true that the space-time theory of gravitation plays any direct role in 
establishing physically correct transformations” (E. J. Post, “Sagnac Effect,” 
Review of Modern Physics, Vol. 39, pp. 475-493, 1967). Other Relativists ( e.g 
Ashtekar and Magnon) say the Sagnac effect is due to acceleration and thus 
solvable by General Relativity but, ironically, they start from the fact that light 
speed is not isotropic relative to the receiver at all times! (Abhay Ashtekar and 
Anne Magnon, “The Sagnac effect in general relativity,” Journal of Mathematical 
Physics, Vol. 16, No. 2, Feb. 1975, pp 341-344). See Hatch’s “GPS and 
Relativity” paper for more information. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

while those sent west-to-east travel at c -v. This difference in the speed of 
light is known as the Sagnac effect. Modem cosmologists and technicians 
compensate for the difference by employing the Lorentz transform 
(sjl — v 2 /c 2 ), but then claim that the GPS works on the principle of 
Relativity. This is a classic case of bait and switch. 

Objection 21: Doesn’t Dark Matter Prove Eartb Isn’t Special? 

Today we hear a lot of talk in cosmological circles about Dark Matter. All 
kinds of claims are being made as to what it is and what it does. Take, for 
example, the words of Michio Kaku. In one interview he says: 

Believe it or not, the Hubble Space telescope over the last 
several years has been giving us maps of something called dark 
matter. Dark matter makes up most of the universe. It’s not made 
out of atoms. Your chemistry teacher was wrong in saying that 
the universe is mainly made out of atoms.... Whole generations 
of textbooks have now had to be thrown out.. ..It’s invisible. You 
cannot photograph dark matter. We know it’s there because of its 
gravitational presence. 354 

Kaku is very clever in his choice of 
language. When he says, “we know it’s there 
because of its gravitational presence” he is 
really saying ‘although we have no 
observational evidence it exists, it must exist 
because present theories about gravity cannot 
work without it. ’ 

How did this come about? In the 1970s, 

Vera Rubin of Cal Tech discovered that 
galaxies do not rotate according to Newton’s 
laws. 355 The outer rims of spiral galaxies are rotating too fast for the 
amount of matter its spiral arms contain - about ten times too fast. Instead 

354 Michio Kaku, interviewed on “Parallel Universes” on the BBC Febmary 14, 
2002. science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml. In his 
book, Parallel Worlds, p. 11, Kaku states: “After thousands of painstaking 
experiments, scientists had concluded that the universe was basically made of 
about a hundred different types of atoms, arranged in an orderly periodic 
chart....The WMAP has now demolished that belief.” 

355 Kaku states in Parallel Worlds, pp. 72-73: “In 1962, the curious problem with 
galactic motion was rediscovered by astronomer Vera Rubin. She studied the 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

of revolving like the planets do around the sun wherein the outer planets 
travel much slower than the inner planets, the outer arms of spiral galaxies 
travel only a little less than the inner arms. This presents a huge problem 
for the Big Bang advocates who claim that the universe is 13.7 billion 
years old. If these fast spinning spiral galaxies are going to survive 13.7 
billion years without wrapping themselves up into a compact ball, they are 
going to need an external force to stop the collapse. Enter Dark Matter. To 
conform to Newtonian formalism, the galaxies need about 23% more 
matter than they presently contain, and the matter needs to be properly 
distributed around the galaxy. 356 Below is an illustration of how today’s 
scientists believe Dark Matter exists within and around a typical galaxy. 

rotation of the Milky Way galaxy...she found that the stars rotated around the 
galaxy at the same rate, independent of their distance from the galactic center 
(which is called a flat rotation curve), thereby violating the precepts of Newtonian 
mechanics. In fact, she found that the Milky Way galaxy was rotating so fast that, 
by rights, it should fly apart....By 1978, Rubin and her colleagues had examined 
eleven spiral galaxies; all of them were spinning too fast to stay together, 
according to the laws of Newton.” In “How to See the Invisible: 3 Approaches to 
Finding Dark Matter,” Discover, Feb. 22, 2012, it states: “Rubin found that stars 
far from the luminous central matter rotated with the same velocity as stars one- 
tenth the distance from the galaxy’s center. This implied that the mass density did 
not fall off with distance, at least to the distances Rubin observed. Astronomers 
concluded that galaxies consisted primarily of unseen dark matter.” One 
explanation from a geocentric system for the flat rotation curves of galaxies is that 
the diurnally spinning universe creates slight but noticeable vortices around 
galaxies that push them beyond their normal F = ma limits. A related issue notes 
that galaxies have a preferred left-handed spin to an excess of 7%, which then 
translates into a preferred axis and a residual angular momentum for the whole 
universe. In Longo’s words, “the universe was born spinning.” Longo also found 
that the spin axis is directly related to the “axis of evil” in the CMB which is 
aligned with our ecliptic and equinoxes. (“Evidence for a Preferred Handedness of 
Sprial Galaxies,” Michael Longo, Physics Letters B 10.1016, 2009; 0904/0904.2529.pdf). 

356 The problem is that astronomers are finding more mass per star count and 
luminosity than is allowed by Newton’s laws. The Milky Way is off by about 10% 
and clusters of galaxies are off by more than 100%. There is generally an increase 
in a galaxy’s radial velocity from the center, but at a certain distance from the 
center the velocity suddenly decreases and continues to decrease. Some rotation 
curves, such as the Milky Way, start from zero at the center and then increase very 
steeply, but then decrease very sharply and drop to about half of its original peak 
rotation speed, but then increases more slowly than expected in Newtonian 
mechanics. To give an analogy, the stars in galaxies rotate much like a tea cup in a 
Tilt-Ta-Whirl amusement ride. The tea cup sometimes moves slow, sometimes 
fast, and everywhere in between; and each tea cup moves differently. These erratic 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Speed of Planets 
Around the Sun 

The other issue with Dark Matter is the 
Marcus Chown of New Scientist puts it: 

formation of galaxies. As 

Dark matter has become an essential ingredient in cosmology’s 
standard model. That’s because the big bang on its own fails to 
describe how galaxies cotdd have congealed from the matter 
forged shortly after the birth of the universe. The problem is that 
gas and dust made from normal matter were spread too evenly 
for galaxies to clump together in just 13.7 billion years. 
Cosmologists fix this problem by adding to their brew a vast 
amount of invisible dark matter which provides the extra tug 
needed to speed up galaxy formation. 

Artist's conception of a Dark Matter halo 

rotation curves are more compatible with Kepler’s gravity, which uses the mean 
density interior to the orbit instead of presuming all the mass is concentrated at the 
center of the orbit as in Newtonian mechanics. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

The same gravitational top-up helps to explain the rapid motion 
of outlying stars in galaxies. Astronomers have measured stars 
orbiting their galactic centres so fast that they ought to fly off 
into intergalactic space. But dark matter’s extra gravity would 
explain how the galaxies hold onto their speeding stars. 
Similarly, dark matter is needed to explain how clusters of 
galaxies can hold on to galaxies that are orbiting the cluster’s 
centre so fast they ought to be flung away. 

But dark matter may not be the cure-all it seems, warns Scarpa. 
What worries him are inconsistencies with the theory. “If you 
believe in dark matter, you discover there is too much of it,” he 
says. In particular, his observations point to dark matter in places 
cosmologists say it shouldn’t exist. One place no one expects to 
see it is in globular clusters, tight knots of stars that orbit the 
Milky Way and many other galaxies. Unlike normal matter, the 
dark stuff is completely incapable of emitting light or any other 
form of electromagnetic radiation. This means a cloud of the 
stuff cannot radiate away its internal heat, a process vital for 
gravitational contraction, so dark matter cannot easily clump 
together at scales as small as those of globular clusters. 

Scarpa’s observations tell a different story, however. He and his 
colleagues have found evidence that the stars in globular clusters 
are moving faster than the gravity of visible matter can explain, 
just as they do in larger galaxies. They have studied three 
globular clusters, including the Milky Way’s biggest, Omega 
Centauri, which contains about a million stars. In all three, they 
find the same wayward behaviour. So if isn't dark matter, what is 
going on? 

Scarpa’s team believes the answer might be a breakdown of 
Newton’s law of gravity, which says an object's gravitational tug 
is inversely proportional to the square of your distance from it. 
Their observations of globular clusters suggest that Newton's 
inverse square law holds true only above some critical 
acceleration. Below this threshold strength, gravity appears to 
dissipate more slowly than Newton predicts. 

Exactly the same effect has been spotted in spiral galaxies and 
galaxy-rich clusters. It was identified more than 20 years ago by 
Mordehai Milgrom at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel, 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

who proposed a theory known as Modified Newtonian Dynamics 
(MOND) to explain it. Scarpa points out that the critical 
acceleration of 10-10 metres per second per second that was 
identified for galaxies appears to hold for globular clusters too. 

And his work has led him to the same conclusion as Milgrom: 
“There is no need for dark matter in the universe,” says 
Scarpa. 157 

Although the above picture shows the Dark Matter as a halo around the 
galaxy, 158 in reality modem cosmology believes that Dark Matter pervades 
the whole universe. For example, Kaku states: “The recent discovery of 
dark matter and dark energy underscores the fact that the higher chemical 
elements that make up our bodies comprise only 0.03 percent of the total 
matter/energy content of the universe.” 159 How this pervasiveness allows 
the individual arms of the galaxy to have disproportionate rotation rates is 
not explained. 

Instead of modifying either the concept of galaxies and what makes 
them spin, or even Newton’s laws (as they once changed because of the 
perihelion of Mercury) and questioning the basis of the Big Bang, 160 
modem cosmology invented the matter it needed without the slightest 
observational evidence for its existence. 161 As such, when Prof. Kaku says 

157 “Did the big bang really happen,” Marcus Chown, New Scientist, July 2, 2005, 

158 In Parallel Worlds, p. 12, Kaku states: “According to the WMAP, 23 percent 
of the universe is made of a strange, undetermined substance called dark matter, 
which has weight, surrounds the galaxies in a gigantic halo, but is totally 
invisible.” Kaku also claims: “Although invisible, this strange dark matter can be 
observed indirectly by scientists because it bends starlight” (p. 73); and says, “in 
1979, the first partial evidence of lensing was found by Dennis Walsh...who 
discovered the double quasar Q0957+561. In 1988, the first Einstein ring was 
observed from the radio source MG1131+0456” (p. 264). See Appendix 3: 
“Gravitational Lensing: Real or Imagined?” for a refutation of this claim 
concerning the double quasar and Einstein’s Cross. 

359 Parallel Worlds, p. 347. 

360 Kaku states: “An alternative theory, first proposed in 1983, tried to explain the 
anomalous orbits of stars in the galaxies by modifying Newton’s laws themselves. 
Perhaps dark matter did not really exist at all but was due to an error within 
Newton’s laws. The survey data cast doubt on this theory” (Parallel Worlds, p. 

361 The precise word “invented” was used by Sean Carroll, astrophysicist at 
California Technical Institute: “We have very good limits from Big Bang 
nucleosynthesis.. .on the total amount of ordinary matter in the universe. It is not 
nearly enough to account for the gravitational fields in galaxies and clusters of 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

that he knows Dark Matter exists by its “gravitational presence” he is 
merely referring to the fact that the gravity of galaxies doesn’t work unless 
science arbitrarily adds Dark Matter in by hand. To cover up the fact that 
the matter is neither empirically verified nor falsifiable, Kaku claims that it 
is a wholly different substance than ordinary baryonic matter and thus it is 
undetectable (i.e., “invisible because light goes beneath it”) yet Newton’s 
law (F = ma) acts as if the Dark Matter was normal baryonic matter. 
Hence, Dark Matter can change its spots depending on its environment. In 
all this conjecture, not the slightest shame is admitted in calling this 
“science.” The conjectures of modern cosmology to make Dark Matter 
appear is no different than a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It is a 
classic case of the tail wagging the dog. 

The main reason for this desperate sprinkling of Dark Matter into the 
celestial soup is that modem cosmologists despise the fact that Earth and 
its environs seem to be working under different physical laws than the rest 
of the universe. This makes the Earth special, which is the last thing Big 
Bang science wants. Dark Matter was invented as the great equalizer, the 
pixie dust that makes everything homogeneous. 

The hard truth is that the empirical evidence reveals a whole different 
reality. For example, a recent study by Chilean astronomers shows, once 
again, that Dark Matter is a figment of modem cosmology’s imagination. 
The report in ScienceDaily states: 

The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the 
Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large 
volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, 
the solar neighbourhood was expected to be filled with dark 
matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected 
indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by 
a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just 
do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to 
directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be 
successful. A team using the MPG/ESO 2.2-metre telescope at 
the European Southern Observatory’s La Silla Observatory, 
along with other telescopes, has mapped the motions of more 
than 400 stars up to 13,000 light-years from the Sun. From this 
new data they have calculated the mass of material in the vicinity 
of the Sun, in a volume four times larger than ever considered 

galaxies. In order to make sense of this, we need to invent dark matter, some kind 
of matter that is not ordinaiy, that is not found in the standard model. There is 
about five times as much dark matter in the universe as there is ordinary matter” 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

before. “The amount of mass that we derive matches very well 
with what we see - stars, dust and gas - in the region around the 
Sun,” says team leader Christian Moni Bidin (Departamento de 
Astronomia, Universidad de Concepcion, Chile). “But this leaves 
no room for the extra material - dark matter - that we were 
expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up 
very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there! ” 

Dark matter is a mysterious substance that cannot be seen, but 
shows itself by its gravitational attraction for the material around 
it. This extra ingredient in the cosmos was originally suggested 
to explain why the outer parts of galaxies, including our own 
Milky Way, rotated so quickly, but dark matter now also forms 
an essential component of theories of how galaxies formed and 
evolved. Today it is widely accepted that this dark component 
constitutes about the 80% of the mass in the Universe, despite 
the fact that it has resisted all attempts to clarify its nature, which 
remains obscure. All attempts so far to detect dark matter in 
laboratories on Earth have failed. By very carefully measuring 
the motions of many stars, particularly those away from the 
plane of the Milky Way, the team could work backwards to 
deduce how much matter is present. The motions are a result of 
the mutual gravitational attraction of all the material, whether 
normal matter such as stars, or dark matter. Astronomers' 
existing models of how galaxies form and rotate suggest that the 
Milky Way is surrounded by a halo of dark matter. They are not 
able to precisely predict what shape this halo takes, but they do 
expect to find significant amounts in the region around the Sun. 
But only very unlikely shapes for the dark matter halo - such as 
a highly elongated form - can explain the lack of dark matter 
uncovered in the new study. 

The new results also mean that attempts to detect dark matter on 
Earth by trying to spot the rare interactions between dark matter 
particles and “normal” matter are unlikely to be successful. 
“Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much 
faster than the visible matter alone can account for. So, if dark 
matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the 
missing mass problem must be found. Our results contradict the 
currently accepted models. The mystery of dark matter has just 
become even more mysterious. Future surveys, such as the ESA 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Gaia mission, will be crucial to move beyond this point,” 
concludes Christian Moni Bidin. 362 

There is one interesting irony of the Dark Matter issue. Whereas Vera 
Rubin’s discovery of the anomalous nature of galaxy rotation showed how 
easily modern cosmology will abandon the empirical approach in order to 
save their cherished Big Bang paradigm, another discovery of Rubin’s 
provided science with the solution to the Dark Matter problem, but it was 
summarily ignored. Rubin discovered that if we add all the known motions 
in the galactic plane, the sum of motion is zero in the Earth’s vicinity. Thi s 
finding amounts to the Earth being in the center and was the very reason 
Rubin said before her research, “Hopefully, it will not force a return to the 
pre-Copemican view of a hierarchy of motions whose sum is zero at the 
Sun.” 363 The irony of the matter is that modem science has discovered that 
if the Earth were in the center, there would be no need for such “dark” 

fudge factors. 364 

Still they try. The latest claim for possibly 
discovering Dark Matter hails from the Alpha 
Magnetic Spectrometer, a particle collector 
mounted on the outside of the International Space 
Station. MIT physicist, Samuel Ting, AMS’s 
principle investigator, believes that Dark Matter 
annihilates itself and fomis electrons and 
positrons. If there are more positrons than 
expected or their distribution is isotropic, Ting 
believes it may indicate the prior presence of 
Dark Matter. 365 Besides the fact that it is 
speculation, it resembles the same misinterpretation that occurred in 1932 
when Carl Anderson discovered the positron (which was previously 

362 “Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories? New Study Finds Mysterious Lack of 
Dark Matter in Sun's Neighborhood,” ScienceDaily, Apr. 18, 2012. The Chilean 
group of Astronomers consists of: C. Moni Bidin (Departamento de Astronomia, 
Universidad de Concepcion, Chile), G. Carraro (European Southern Observatory, 
Santiago, Chile), R. A. Mendez (Departamento de Astronomia, Universidad de 
Chile, Santiago, Chile) and R. Smith (Departamento de Astronomia, Universidad 
de Concepcion, Chile). 

363 Vera C. Rubin, Norbert Thonnard and W. Kent Ford, Jr., “Motion of the 
Galaxy and the Local Group determined from the velocity anisotropy of distant Sc 
I galaxies,” The Astronomical Journal, vol. 81, No. 9, Sept. 1976, p. 735. 

364 See chapter 3’s coverage of Oxford scientist Timothy Clifton in the subtitled 
section “Dark Energy or Geocentrism?” 



Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

theorized by Paul Dirac in 1928). Anderson found that when gamma 
radiation of no less than 1.022 million electron volts (MeV) was 
discharged at any point of space in his laboratory, an electron and positron 
emerged from that point. 366 He also found the converse, that is, when an 
electron collides with a positron, the two particles disappear, as it were, 
and produce two gamma-ray quanta which disperse in opposite directions, 
but with a combined energy of 1.022 MeV. In the heyday of Einstein’s E = 
me 2 , this phenomenon was interpreted to be proof that matter could be 
created and annihilated out of thin air. The same appears to be the case in 
Ting’s theory, since the AMS is based on detecting gamma radiation that 
produces positrons. Unfortunately, these scientists forgot to consider that 
electron/positron pairings may fill all of space and that sufficient gamma 
radiation releases the pairings. But, of course, if that were true than 
Einstein’s etherless space would have been nullified, and so would both 
Special and General Relativity. 

Objection #22: Doesn’t Dari? Energ’y Prove the Earth is 
Expanding’ Outward Along’ wi th Everything’ Else? 

Dark Energy is simply another fudge-factor of modem Big Bang 
cosmology. Like Dark Matter, they cannot see, hear, feel, taste or touch it, 
but they “know” it is there. Why? Because the acceleration needed for the 
Big Bang expansion could not occur without it. It would be the same as if 
you put a gallon of gas in a car to take you on a trip that you know requires 
twenty gallons. Instead of going on the trip, you sit at your desk and work 
out a mathematical formula that contains that extra nineteen gallons, and 
then you advertise the formula as if it is the reality. As Kaku puts it: 

The greatest surprise of the WMAP data.. .was that 73 percent of 
the made of a totally unknown form of energy 
called dark energy....Introduced by Einstein himself in 
now believed to create a new antigravity field which is driving 
the galaxies apart. 367 

Suffice it to say, “WMAP” showed no such thing. WMAP merely 
showed a universe that had too little energy to do what modem cosmology 
desperately needed it to do, so they invented the needed energy and called 
it “dark” because this would give the impression it really exists even 

366 1.022 MeV equals 3.9 x 10" 19 calories. 

367 Parallel Worlds, p. 12. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

though it cannot be detected. Similar to Kaku, other cosmologists make it 
appear as if the seeds of “dark energy” were already in Einstein’s theories. 
For example, Brian Greene says: 

What force could be driving every galaxy to rush away from 
every other faster and faster? The most promising answer comes 
to us from an old idea of Einstein’s....But in Einstein’s general 
theory of relativity, gravity can also do something else: it can 
push things apart....Einstein’s equations show that if space 
contains something else - not clumps of matter but an invisible 
energy, sort of like invisible must that’s uniformly spread 
through space - then the gravity exerted by the energy mist 
would be repulsive. Which is just what we need to explain the 
observations. The repulsive gravity of an invisible energy must 
filling space - we now call it dark energy - would push every 
galaxy away from every other, driving the expansion to speed 
up, not slow down. 368 

The draw to Einstein is very great in modem cosmology. Since he is 
propped up as such an authority, the temptation to trace current theories to 
his theoretical foundations is quite common. The truth is, however, that the 
only commonality that modem Dark Energy theorists have with Einstein is 
that both invented what they needed to permit their theories to work as 

368 “New Secrets of the Universe,” Brian Greene, Newsweek, May 28, 2012, p. 23. 
Elsewhere Greene makes it appear as if Dark Energy has actually been discovered 
(e.g., “why do we humans find ourselves in a universe with the particular amount 
of dark energy we’ve measured” p. 24). Greene is referring to the fact that Big 
Bang cosmology has taken Einstein’s original A (i.e., the “cosmological constant” 
to keep the universe static) and put it on the other side of his tensor equation to 
represent Dark Energy so that the universe will expand at the needed accelerated 
rate. So, what was Einstein’s G^ v - Ag (lv = 87iGT (lv is now the Big Bang’s G pv = 
ShGT^v. + Ag liv . The term G liv is the curvature tensor, which is the geometry of 
Einstein’s ‘spacetime.’ The term T uv is the stress- or energy-momentum tensor, 
which represents the precise distribution of matter and energy in the universe. In 
other words, the geometry of space is curved based on the amount of matter and 
energy it contains. The term G is the universal gravitational constant. The term g |JV 
is the spacetime metric tensor that defines distances. The 8 ji is the factor necessary 
to make Einstein’s gravity reduce to Newton’s gravity in the weak or minimal 
field limit. As it stands, in the equation G^ = 87iGT HV . + Ag^ the Ag liv is Dark 
Energy and 8 tiT uv is baryonic matter and Dark Matter. Often the term Ag MV is 
replaced by p vac g^ v , which more accurately represents the energy of the quantum 
vacuum, whereas Ag |lv is more accurately General Relativity’s concept of 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

they wanted them to work; and both were motivated to do so in order to 
preserve the reigning cosmological paradigm from which they were 
spawned, the Copernican Principle. The real truth is that Einstein’s 
classical General Relativity can only account for the 4% of the universe. 
Since the universe is now claimed to be 96% Dark Energy and Dark 
Matter, and if they still wanted Einstein to be their mentor, they needed to 
make Einstein’s theory come up to snuff. They then decide to inject it with 
a booster shot called Lambda, which is 73% of the 96%, and the two are 
given the acronym LCDM or ACDM (which stands for Lambda plus Cold 
Dark Matter). However, adding Lambda to General Relativity’s original 
tensor equation caused a huge problem. It required that they redefine 
General Relativity, since it does not work with Lambda. That is, unless 
Lambda equals zero, General Relativity cannot add up its tensors. 369 

This takes us back to the basic problem with modem cosmology. The 
Big Bang, in opposition to Steady State cosmology, believes in a 
beginning to our universe - an explosion of some undefined infinitesimal 
entity that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. This entity is said to have been 

369 As Misner, et al, put it: “The only conceivable modification that does not alter 
vastly the structure of the theory is to change the lefthand side of the 
geometrodynamic law G = 8nT. Recall that the lefthand side is forced to be the 
Einstein tensor, G a p = R a p - !4/? a p, by three assumptions: (DC vanishes when 
spacetime is flat; (2) G is constmcted from the Riemann curvature tensor and the 
metric and nothing else; (3) G is distinguished from other tensors that can be built 
from Riemann and g by the demands (1) that it be linear in Riemann, as befits 
any natural measure of curvature; (2) that, like T. it be symmetric and of second 
rank; and (3) that it have an automatically vanishing divergence, V ■ G =0. 
Denote a new, modified lefthand side by “G,” with quotation marks to avoid 
confusion with the standard Einstein tensor. To abandon V ■ G = 0 is impossible 
on dynamic grounds (see §17.2). To change the symmetry or rank of “G” is 
impossible on mathematical grounds, since “G” must be equated to T. To let “G” 
be nonlinear in Riemann would vastly complicate the theory. To construct “G” 
from anything except Riemann and g would make “G” no longer a measure of 
spacetime geometry and would thus violate the spirit of the theory. After much 
anguish, one concludes that the assumption which one might drop with least 
damage to the beauty and spirit of the theory is assumption (1), that “G” vanish 
when spacetime is flat. But even dropping this assumption is painful: (1) although 
“G” might still be in some sense a measure of geometry, it can no longer be a 
measure of curvature; and (2) flat, empty spacetime will no longer be compatible 
with the geometrodynamic law (G f 0 in flat, empty space, where T = 0). 
Nevertheless, these consequences wee less painful to Einstein than a dynamic 
universe. The only tensor that satisfies conditions (2) and (3) [with (1) abandoned] 
is the Einstein tensor plus a multiple of the metric “G a p” = R a p - 'Ag a p + Ag a p = G a p 
+ Ag a p....Thus was Einstein (1917) led to his modified field equation G + Ag = 
BjiT.” (Gravitation , p. 410). 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

spawned from a previous universe, and that universe from an even earlier 
universe (which, as will see in chapter 3, is the same mysticism inherent in 
ancient Indian cosmology that believed the world rested on the backs of 
successive turtles). 

As if getting something from nothing is not enough of a problem, the 
second thorn in the side for the Big Bang appears when the rate of the 
explosion must be determined. If it’s too slow, the universe will go into 
what is called the “Big Crunch,” that is, gravity will pull all the exploding 
parts back together before it can evolve into the organized biophilic system 
we see today. If it’s too fast, the universe will be diffuse and likewise will 
not be able to produce galactic structure and biological life. Like 
Goldilocks and her porridge, the expansion must be just right otherwise 
life couldn’t exist (at least under modem science’s illusory belief in 
evolution as the mechanical process that produces life). Too boot, the 
amount of matter in the explosion must also be just right. Too much and 
the universe will not expand. Too little and no complex structures will be 
formed. As one scientist put it, it’s like trying to balance a pencil on its 

As one can see, modern cosmology is in a real pickle. But it didn’t 
start here. When Newton discovered gravity, one of his first problems was 
having to deal with Copernicus’ limited universe. Newton realized that the 
very gravity he discovered would eventually pull the stars into one 
massive ball. In order to compensate for this problem, Newton opted for an 
infinite universe. As time went by, science realized there were too many 
problems with an infinite universe, so Einstein tried to compensate for 
gravity by introducing an opposing force, which he called the 
“cosmological constant.” As Misner, et al, describe it: 

In 1915, when Einstein developed his general relativity theory, 
the permanence of the universe was a fixed item of belief in 
Western philosophy. “The heavens endure from everlasting to 
everlasting.” Thus, it disturbed Einstein greatly to discover that 
his geometrodynamic law G = 8ttT predicts a no/ipermanent 
universe; a dynamic universe; a universe that originated in a 
“big-bang” explosion, or will be destroyed eventually by 
contraction to infinite density, or both. Faced with this 
contradiction between his theory and the firm philosophical 
belief of the day, Einstein weakened; he modified his theory. 370 

370 Misner, Thome and Wheeler, Gravitation, pp. 409-410. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

His new theory would reverse the effects of gravity and keep the 
universe from falling in on itself. The universe would remain static, not 
expanding or contracting. It would also follow Mach’s prionciple, wherein 
space was defined by the matter within it. But Wilhelm de Sitter didn’t 
follow Mach’s rules and created a variation for Einstein’s cosmological 
constant. De Sitter ignored all the matter of the universe and only 
concentrated on its quantum energy, an energy that would be enough to 
propel the expansion of the universe. So the choice was between Einstein’s 
static but matter-filled universe and de Sitter’s expanding but matter- 
deficient universe. Next, Alexander Friedmann then fiddled with 
Einstein’s math and eliminated the cosmological constant and produced an 
expanding universe still under the constraints of General Relativity. 371 But 
this required that he make the equations produce a universe whose matter 
was spread out evenly and was the same everywhere ( i.e ., isotropic and 
homogeneous), otherwise known as the “cosmological principle.” This 
made Arthur Eddington backtrack to point out that, even with the 
cosmological constant, an Einstein-type universe was not really static or 
balanced. Since gravity and Einstein’s cosmological constant (A) had to be 
balanced so perfectly ( e.g ., like balancing a pencil on its point), even 
minute fluctuations would produce a runaway expansion or an unstoppable 
contraction. The best Friedmann could do was propose a universe with 
enough matter (what he called “the critical density”) that would allow the 
universe to expand for eternity but at an ever decreasing rate, even though 
this solution itself was counterintuitive. As NASA puts it: 

Einstein first proposed the cosmological a 
mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its 
simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must 
either expand or contract. Einstein thought the universe was 
static, so he added this new term [(A) lambda] to stop the 
expansion. Friedmann, a Russian mathematician, realized that 
this was an unstable fix, like balancing a pencil on its point, and 
proposed an expanding universe model, now called the Big Bang 
theory. 372 

In retrospect, when Hubble relieved some of the problem by 
interpreting the redshift of galaxies as a sign that the universe was 
expanding, still, in order to have the matter move yet remain homogeneous 

371 For a good analysis of Friedmann’s five equations, see 

372 “Dark Energy: A Cosmological Constant?” 
/universe/uni matter.html 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

(as required by Friedmann’s equation), the value of its rate of expansion 
(FI); as well as the value of its density (fl); and the energy to propel the 
expansion (A), had to fulfill the Goldilocks rule - it had to be just right or 
there would be no universe. Various scientists have spent their entire 
careers trying to figure out the perfect combination to these three numbers, 
but to no avail. Again, it is like trying to balance a pencil on its point. This 
is what happens when the universe is made to start from a big bang instead 
of creative fiat - the math never produces what we actually see. 
Postulating a big bang is easy. Making it work with all the other laws of 
science is impossible. 373 

Another problem arose at the tail end of the twentieth century. 
Observations of class la supemovae, which are used as measuring devices 
for time and distance in Big Bang cosmology, revealed that the universe 
wasn’t slowing down in its expansion but was speeding up. 374 This meant 
that there was no possibility this new acceleration (H 2 ) could be accounted 

373 One of those “laws of science” cropped up in what was known as the “horizon 
problem.” If the speed of light is limited (and thus the spread of information from 
one end of the Big Bang to the other is also limited), how could the right hand of 
the explosion know what the left hand was doing? This problem was solved by the 
imposition of yet another fudge factor - the inflation theory. Designed by Alan 
Guth of MIT, it postulates that the Big Bang exploded 10 5CI times faster than 
previously thought, which then allowed the information to travel 10 50 times faster. 

374 The la Supemovae explosions were dimmer than expected, which, based on 
redshift values, translated into them being farther away from Earth than what 
astronomers previously believed. Since their light has taken longer to reach Earth, 
Big Bang cosmologists assume the universe must have taken longer to grow to its 
current size. Consequently, the expansion rate must have been slower in the past 
than previously thought. Hence, the supernovae are dim enough that the expansion 
must have accelerated to have caught up with its current expansion rate. Yet the 
universe’s matter should have slowed the expansion. So what is making it speed 
up? If the cosmological principle is accepted such that the acceleration occurs 
evenly and smoothly for the entire universe, it forces the introduction of “dark 
energy” to sustain the acceleration. See “Observational Evidence from 
Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant,” Adam 
G. Riess, et al, 1998. The abstract concludes: “A Universe closed by ordinary 
matter ( i.e ., £2 M = 1) is formally ruled out at the 7 a to 8o confidence level for 
the two different fitting methods.” ( 
See also “Surveying Spacetime with Supernovae,” Craig J. Hogan, et al.. 
Scientific American, January 1999. See also Marie-Noelle Celerier who 
concludes: “The interpretation of recently published data from high redshift SNIa 
surveys... It has been shown that a straight reading of these data does not exclude 
the possibility of ruling out the Cosmological Principle” (“Do we really see a 
Cosmological Constant in the Supernovae data?” Aston. & Astro. Feb. 2008, p. 9. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

for by the present amount of energy and baryonic matter (A + O) in the 
Big Bang universe. 

A related problem arose when the 2001 Wilkinson Microwave 
Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) apparently found that the geometry of the 
universe is “flat,” 375 which Big Bang advocates prefer because it is the 
only one which will allow the negative energy of gravity to balance out the 
positive energy of matter so that the net energy is zero. 376 Big Bang 

375 A “flat” universe is a Euclidean 3-dimensional universe as opposed to a 
Reimann curved universe. Taken as a whole, the universe is Euclidean. In a “flat” 
universe, if one were to inscribe a giant triangle in a circle in outer space, the 
value would be n (3.14). Another way to describe it is to say that light travels in 
straight lines in a flat universe. In Big Bang cosmology, the “flatness” of the 
universe is determined by its energy density (Q). If O is > I or < I, then the 
universe is curved or non-Euclidean and the above triangle would be > or < n, and 
light would travel a curved directions. Big Bang cosmologists prefer a “flat” 
universe so that it can expand forever (as opposed to curving back in on itself). It 
is believed that the distribution of the cosmic microwave radiation (CMB) found 
by the 2001 WMAP showed a density fitting a “flat” universe. 

376 Krauss claims that WMAP determined the universe is “flat” by the following 
reasoning: The energy at the very beginning of the Big Bang was not zero, so one 
needs to arrive at zero sometime in the aftermath of the Big Bang. This was 
accomplished by finding a measurement in space that appeared to be zero. A 
triangle is drawn in space as the measuring device and applied as follows: if the 
universe is 13.78 billion years old, one should be able to see the beginning of the 
Big Bang (looking backwards into time, as it were). But one cannot see all the 
way back to the Big Bang because there is an opaque wall in the way. This wall is 
due to the fact that the temperature at the Big Bang was hot enough (3000K) to 
break apart hydrogen atoms to produce protons and electrons, which is a ‘charged 
plasma’ that is opaque to radiation. One cannot see past this part of the universe 
since it is opaque. But light bounces off the surface of the opaque wall and is 
radiated back to Earth (See Figure 2). This light is the CMB at 2.73K (instead of 
the original 3000K), so the protons have captured the electrons and made space 
transparent instead of opaque, and thus one can see this part of space from Earth. 
Moreover, the radiation should be coming to Earth from all directions since the 
wall surrounds earth like a sphere. Then, if one takes 1 arc second on the wall of 
the CMB (where it is opaque), it represents 100,000 light years in distance. Since 
Einstein said no information can be transferred faster than light, this means that 
anything that happened on one side of the CMB could not affect anything on the 
other side. Thus, big lumps of matter (bigger than 100,000 light years across) 
could not collapse because gravity, which Einstein limited to the speed of light, 
could not go across them. Lumps that collapsed had to be 100,000 light years or 
less in size. Since 100,000 light years equals one arc second for the base of the 
triangle; and the distance to the “opaque wall” provides the two other sides of the 
isosceles triangle (and since light rays travel in straight lines in the “transparent” 
part, then the sides of the triangle are straight), Viola! the needed “triangle” is 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

advocates want a zero energy sum because they believe it will answer the 
haunting question concerning the origins of the Big Bang, with the answer 
being “it came from nothing.” As Lawrence Krauss puts it: “The laws of 
physics allow the universe to begin from nothing. You don’t need a deity. 
You have nothing, zero total energy, and quantum fluctuations can 
produce a universe.” 377 In the same video, the crass Krauss also says: 

You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here today if stars hadn’t 
exploded...because the elements...carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, 
iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren’t created at the 
beginning of time, they were created in the nuclear furnaces of 
stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if the 
stars were kind enough to explode. So forget Jesus. The stars 
died so you could be here today. 

To arrive at zero energy to counterbalance the negative energy of 
gravity, our universe has only 4% of the needed matter. Additionally, if 
they were going to use Friedmann’s equations, then a “flat” universe 
requires that the “critical density” must be equal to the average density. 
But even adding in 23% Dark Matter and 4% normal matter, this left 73% 
positive energy still required to counterbalance gravity. 

Yet another problem was the time needed for the formation of stars 
and galaxies. Under present calculations it appeared that the age of the 
universe was younger than the age of its oldest stars! NASA describes the 
dilemma and the proposed solution: 

Many cosmologists advocate reviving [Einstein’s] cosmological 
constant term on theoretical grounds, as a way to explain the rate 
of expansion of the universe....The main attraction of the 
cosmological constant term is that it significantly improves the 

produced to “measure” the energy. In an Open universe the light rays will diverge 
as one looks back into time, so the distance across the “lump” (the “ruler”) will 
look smaller, perhaps half an arc second. In a Closed universe the light rays look 
bigger as one looks back into time so the distance across the lump would be 
bigger than 1 arc second. The lumps are measured to see if they are a half, one, or 
1.5 arc seconds. Boomerang and WMAP took a picture of the opaque wall and 
found the separation of the lumps was about 1 arc second, which matches a “flat” 
universe. Using a computer generated lump-picture in which the lump is less than 
1 arc second produces a “Closed” universe. If the lumps are larger than one, they 
get an “Open” universe. (See Figure 1). As Krauss puts it: “the universe is flat, it 
has zero total energy, and it could have come from nothing.” 



Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

agreement between theory and observation....For example, if the 
cosmological constant today comprises most of the energy 
density of the universe, then the extrapolated age of the universe 
is much larger than it would be without such a term, which helps 
avoid the dilemma that the extrapolated age of the universe is 
younger than some of the oldest stare we observe! 378 

Figure 1: Moderate distribution of CMB (as opposed to 
confined or sparse) is said to produce a "flat" universe 

Big Bang Options Based on WMAP Results 

Figure 2: Light is said to reflect off of "Opaque Wall" 

378 “Dark Energy: A Cosmological Constant?” 
/uni matter.html 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

So what is a Big Bang cosmologist to do? If he has no energy source 
for the accelerating universe and is missing more than two-thirds of the 
needed “critical density” for a flat universe, then he would have to 
abandon the Big Bang theory and perhaps start reading Genesis 1 with a 
little more open-mindedness. But he will have none of that. So he does the 
same thing with this problem that he did with the spiral galaxies that were 
spinning too erratically to fit Newton’s and Einstein’s laws of motion - he 
simply invents the energy he needs. This time it is called Dark Energy, but 
he can’t see, hear, feel, taste or smell it. How much does he need? 
According to the equations, about 73% of the universe must be composed 
of Dark Energy to make the Big Bang conform to la supemovae 
requirements. This invention then allows the universe to be 13.7 billion 
years old (so that it is older than the stars) and give enough energy to reach 
the needed “critical density.” 

The proponents of this convenient manipulation of data seem 
oblivious to their ploys. But George Ellis is not ashamed to admit that the 
whole thing is based on wishing or presuming that the Copemican 
Principle is true: 

Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the 
acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due 
to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy. Observational 
tests of the latter possibility are as important as pursuing the dark 
energy (exotic physics) option in a homogeneous universe. 
Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our 
place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely 
because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle 
for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. 

And one must emphasize here that standard CMB anisotropy 
studies do not prove the Copemican principle: they assume it at 
the start....The further issue that arises is that while some form 
of averaging process is in principle what one should do to arrive 
at the large scale geometry of the universe on the basis of 
observations, in practice what is normally done is the inverse. 

One assumes a priori a FLRW model as a background model, 
and then uses some form of observationally-based fitting process 
to determine its basic parameters. 379 

379 “Inhomogeneity effects in Cosmology,” George F. R. Ellis, March 14, 2011, 
University of Cape Town, pp. 19, 5; 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Michio Kaku is a perfect example of cosmology not heeding Ellis’ 

No one at the present time has any understanding of where this 
‘energy of nothing’ comes from....If we take the latest theory of 
subatomic particles and try to compute the value of this dark 

120 380 

energy, we find a number that is off by 10 " . 

As Kaku’s admits that modern theory is “off by 10 120 ” he is referring 
to the discovery by Russian physicist Yakov Zel’dovich, and later 
established in quantum electrodynamics (QED) or quantum field theory 
(QFT), that empty space has an energy of 10 120 more than the Dark Energy 
needed to propel the proposed “accelerating expansion of the universe.” 381 
The 10 120 excess energy is the only source available but it cannot be cut up 
into slices. It is all or nothing. This is precisely why Big Bang advocates 
invented “Dark Energy” - a hoped for source of energy that is more than 
the miniscule energy created by baryonic matter but less than the 10 120 
excess energy given by quantum theory. 

Here is an even bigger problem. Since Big Bang cosmologists believe 
space contains 10 120 more energy than what we have detected; and since 
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity requires that all forms of energy 
(even the 10 120 ) function as a source of gravity; and since Einstein’s 
equations require that the “curvature” of the universe depends on its 
energy content, then, since the energy content is 10 120 more than what 
Einstein proposed, the whole universe should presently be curled up into a 
space smaller than the dot on this i. Obviously it isn’t. As we can see, the 
Big Bang universe simply does not work under present empirical evidence. 

Noted physicist Paul Steinhardt of Princeton has gone on record 
against the present Big Bang theory. He opts for what can best be called 
the Big Brane theory. In a recent lecture, Steinhardt says the following of 
the Big Bang: 

380 Parallel Worlds, p. 12. 

381 The actual number is 1.38 X 10 123 . But this is only after any energy greater 
than the Planck scale is excluded. According to Sean Carroll at California 
Technical Institute: “You can add up all the effects of these virtual particles.. ..and 
you get infinity....So we cut things off by saying we will exclude contributions of 
virtual particles whose energy is larger than the Planck scale.. .which we have no 
right to think we understand what’s going on...Then you get a finite answer for 
the vacuum, and answer that is bigger than what you observer by a factor of 10 to 
the 120 th power.” ( &feature 
=watch-vrec). This is one of the reasons Carroll runs the website titled: “The 
Preposterous Universe” at 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

So, the first point I want to make about the Big Bang model is 
that the Big Bang model of 2011...that model I just described, 
definitely fails.. ..We have to fix the Big Bang model, we have to 
add things to it to make it work. 382 

Indeed, things like Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Lambda 
values and Hubble “constants” of which the only thing constant is that they 
are constantly being changed to accommodate the next fudge factor that 
will prop up the Big Bang. Along these lines, Richard Lieu submitted a 
scathing critique of the ACDM [Big Bang] model in a 2007 paper: 

...Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal 
assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the 
laboratory, and researches are quite comfortable with inventing 
u nk nowns to explain the u nk nown. How then could, after fifty 
years of failed attempts in finding dark matter, the fields of dark 
matter and now, dark energy have become such lofty priorities in 
astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of 
astronomy?...ACDM cosmology has been propped by a 
paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter 
evidence and subdue competing models....I believe astronomy is 
no longer heading towards a healthy future.. ..Charging under the 
banner of Einstein’s extreme eminence and his forbidding theory 
of General Relativity, have cosmologists been over-exercising 
our privileges?...Could this be a sign of a person (or camp of 
people in prestigious institutes) who become angry because they 
are embarrassed? 383 

In 2006 NASA organized the Dark Energy Task Force in order to 
bring the problems to the fore and to seek for some answers. Answer, 
however, were hard to come by. If anything, the Task Force realized how 
little modem science knows about the universe, much less how it is going 
to fit its theories into the anomalous evidence it sees. In the first pages of 
the 80-page report, the summation of the Task Force’s findings are quite 


383 “ACDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the 
model really lead its competitors, using all evidence,” Richard Lieu, Dept, of 
Physics, Univ. of Alabama, May 17, 2007. Although Lieu presents equally flawed 
models due to the fact that all cosmologists are searching in vain for how the 
universe started and develops, he candidly admits “Perhaps all models are equally 
poor” (p. 12). 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Report of the 
Dark Energy 
Task Force 

Report to HEPAP 
6 July 2006 
Rocky Kolb 

They are as follows: 

• “Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the 
physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical 

• “The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the 
observed phenomenon which most directly demonstrates that our 
fundamental theories of particles and gravity are either incorrect or 

• “Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our 
understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve 
a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration.” 

• “For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very 
most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science.” 

• “These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program 
to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.” 384 

In other words, modem cosmology doesn’t know what the blazes it is 
doing today. It is at a total loss to explain the universe, more so than it was 
a hundred years ago. And whereas General Relativity was considered the 
solution to cosmology’s major problems in the 1920s, the Task Force 
concludes “Possibility: GR or standard cosmological model incorrect.” 385 

,s 1 Dark Energy Task Force, 2006, at 
/hep/pdf/files/pdfs/kolb_hepap_07_06.pdf. Page 53 of the report reveals how 
much the Task Force estimates they will need to do further investigation into the 
mystery of Dark Energy - “2.4 billion dollars.” 

"’ S5 Ibid., p. 7. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

How Does Modern Cosmology Deal Witli Tkese Problems? 

The new means by which many modem cosmologists seek to deal 
with these intractable anomalies is by creating the Multiverse. This allows 
the modern cosmologist to create any universe he desires so that all the 
numbers can fit the way he wants them to fit. In the words of the popular 
cosmologist, Brian Greene: 

In seeking an explanation for the value of dark energy, maybe 
we’ve been making a mistake analogous to Kepler’s. Our best 
cosmological theory - the inflationary theory - naturally gives 
rise to other universes. Perhaps, then, just as there are many 
planets orbiting stars at many different distances, maybe there 
are many universes containing many different amounts of dark 
energy. If so, asking the laws of physics to explain one particular 
value of dark energy would be just as misguided as trying to 
explain one particular planetary distance. Instead, the right 
question to ask would be: why do we humans find ourselves in a 
universe with the particular amount of dark energy we’ve 
measured, instead of any of the other possibilities? 

This is a question we can address. In universes with larger 
amounts of dark energy, whenever matter tries to clump into 
galaxies, the repulsive push of the dark energy is so strong that 
the clump gets blown apart, thwarting galactic formation. In 
universes whose dark-energy value is much smaller, the 
repulsive push changes to an attractive pull, causing those 
universes to collapse back on themselves so quickly that again 
galaxies wouldn’t form. And without galaxies, there are no stars, 
no planets, and so in those universes there’s no chance for our 
form of life to exist. 

And so we find ourselves in this universe and not another for 
much the same reason we find ourselves on earth and not on 
Neptune—we find ourselves where conditions are ripe for our 
form of life. Even without being able to observe the other 
universes, their existence would thus play a scientific role: the 
multiverse offers a solution to the mystery of dark energy, 
rendering the quantity we observe understandable. 

Or so that’s what multiverse proponents contend. Many others 
find this explanation unsatisfying, silly, even offensive, asserting 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

that science is meant to give definitive, precise, and quantitative 
explanations, not “just so” stories. But the essential counterpoint 
is that if the feature you’re trying to explain can and does take on 
a wide variety of different mathematical values across the 
landscape of reality, then seeking a definitive explanation for one 
value is wrongheaded. Just as it makes no sense to ask for a 
definitive prediction of the distance at which planets orbit their 
host stars, since there are many possible distances, if we’re part 
of a multiverse it would make no sense to ask for a definitive 
prediction of the value of dark energy, since there would be 
many possible values. 386 

In the hands of inflation, string theory’s enormously diverse 
collection of possible universes become actual universes, 
brought to life by one big bang after another. Our universe is 
then virtually guaranteed to be among them. And because of the 
special features necessary for our form of life, that’s the universe 
we inhabit. 387 

As we will see in more detail in Chapter 3, modern cosmology’s 
answer to unsolvable problems in their theory, and its answer to the 
unfathomable precision with which our universe is made, is to fantasize 
that an infinite variety of universes exist and, just by time and chance, we 
have somehow stumbled upon the only one that we can live in. Cosmology 
has now turned into metaphysics. The empirical approach does not provide 
the answers they desire so science now opts to make its scientists into 
philosophers who can create their own universes at will. 

Objection #23: Didn’t WMAP Prove the Big Bang? 

In 2010, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration 
(NASA) website 388 included a list of the “Top Ten” accomplishments of 
the 2001 Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) findings. 
Suffice it to say, each of NASA’s claims are presumptuous. Our response 
is given to each. 

386 Brian Greene, “Welcome to the Multiverse,” The Daily Beast, May 21, 2012, /newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to- 

387 “New Secrets of the Universe,” Newsweek, May 28, 2012, p. 25. 



Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Claim 1: NASAs Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has 
mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest 
light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) 
full-sky map of the microwave sky. 

Response: In reality, the results of WMAP were so disturbing for NASA 
and the rest of the scientific world that the European Space Agency 
decided to launch another satellite, the Planck Probe, in 2009 to determine 
whether the data from WMAP was accurate. The results of the Planck 
Probe released in March 2013. The results are precisely the same as 
WMAP, only in more detail. 389 

Claim 2: WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 
13.75 billion years old to within 1% (0.11 billion years) - as recognized in 
the Guinness Book of World Records! 

Response: WMAP did not determine anything, since it is merely an 
instrument that collects data. NASA scientists “determine” the results of 
WMAP data, and they do so only through their biased presuppositions that 
accord with the Big Bang theory, a failed theory that is dependent on 
invented props such as Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Inflation; a theory 
which fails to provide answers for anomalies such as disparate redshift 
values for quasar-connected galaxies; shifting Hubble, Omega and 
Lambda values; and the incongruity of quantum mechanics and general 
relativity. Despite these anomalies, NASA systematically excludes all 
other interpretations of WMAP’s data. (See the answer to Objection #15 
for more information on how the age of the universe is calculated). In 
actuality, NASA chooses an age close to 13 billion years because its 
scientists naively believe that “carbon scattering” from supernovas created 
biological life; and they estimate that such a process would take at least 10 
billion years. However, it cannot be much more than 10 billion years 
because by then all the stars would have used up their fuel and would 
cease to exist. So, 13.75 billion years is their safest bet. 

Claim 3: WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 0.6% of 
“flat” Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning 
measurements by over an order of magnitude. 



Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Response: WMAP didn’t “nail down” anything. NASA scientists have 
predetermined that a flat Euclidean space is needed for the Big Bang since 
they cannot get it to work with the two other Friedmann models available 
( e.g ., an “open” universe that expands forever, or a “closed” universe that 
expands but eventually collapses in on itself). As physicist Andrei Linde 

A second trouble spot [for the Big Bang] is the flatness of space. 
General Relativity suggests that space may be very curved, with 
a typical radius on the order of the Planck length, or 10" 33 
centimeters. We see, however, that our universe is just about flat 
on a scale of 10 28 centimeters, the radius of the observable part 
of the universe. This result of our observation differs from 
theoretical expectations by more than 60 orders of magnitude. 390 

Since General Relativity cannot give them the universe they need, the Big 
Bang model can only have some semblance of feasibility if, after the 
phantom props of Dark Energy and Dark Matter are added, the resulting 
“balloon” universe (that Hubble invented to remove Earth from the center 
of the universe) is as “flat” as it can be so that it can expand, slow down, 
but never stop. In the minds of NASA scientists, the universe is a two- 
dimensional inflating balloon, but no longer has the curved surface 
commonly associated with balloons, but a flat surface (more commonly 
associated with popped balloons, we suppose). 

Claim 4: The CMB became the “premier baiyometer’’ of the universe with 
WMAP’s precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called 
baryons) make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.2%). 

Response: WMAP made no such “determinations.” WMAP merely 
showed a huge amount of empty space in the universe and, consequently, 
did not provide NASA with the matter and energy it needed for the Big 
Bang. The reality is, NASA scientists claim there is only 4.6% baryonic 
matter in order to make it appear as if WMAP provided data agreeing with 
NASA when, in reality, WMAP flatly denied NASA’s dream universe. 
The reality is that NASA needs 95.4% more energy to fit its theory that the 
universe is expanding at an accelerated rate (an acceleration determined by 
their idiosyncratic interpretation of la supernovas), but since there isn’t 
enough matter and energy for the universe to behave as NASA wants it to 

390 Andre Linde, “The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe,” Magnificent 
Cosmos, Scientific American, 1998, p. 99. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

(i.e., there is only 4.6% available), NASA simply invents the matter and 
energy it needs and makes it appear as if the WMAP data supports it. 

Claim 5: WMAP’s complete census of the universe finds that dark matter 
(not made up of atoms) make up 22.7% (to within 1.4%). 

Response: WMAP took no “census of the universe.” It merely showed 
anomalous galaxy rotation curves that don’t fit with NASA’s use of either 
Einstein or Newton’s laws of gravity. In order to make it appear as if those 
laws are operable in deep space, NASA invented 22.7% of the matter it 
needed to have the galaxies rotate as Einstein and Newton’s laws dictate. It 
is dubbed “Dark Matter.” In reality, there is no empirical evidence that it 
exists. NASA needs it because if it cannot show why the galaxies are 
rotating as they do, then the Big Bang could not occur. The galaxies would 
either fall apart or collapse long before 13.7 billion years. 

Claim 6: WMAP’s accuracy and precision determined that dark energy> 
makes up 72.8% of the universe (to within 1.6%), causing the expansion 
rate of the universe to speed up. “Lingering doubts about the existence of 
dark energy> and the composition of the universe dissolved when the 
WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic 
microwave background (CMB). ’’ Science Magazine 2003, “Breakthrough 
of the Year’’ article. 

Response: WMAP is certainly “accurate and precise,” but it made no 
“determination” that “dark energy makes up 72.8% of the universe.” This 
is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. The reality is that 
NASA’s theory (based on its interpretation of la supernovas) claims the 
universe is accelerating, but NASA can find no matter or energy in deep 
space to propel the acceleration. Consequently, if NASA wants to give any 
semblance of credibility for the Big Bang it must invent the 72.8% energy 
it needs, and then display it to the world as if the energy actually exists. It 
is conveniently called “Dark Energy” because, like Dark Matter, it has 
never been detected and only exists in the dark mind of the NASA theorist. 

Claim 7: WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation 
over the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier 
than previously believed. - “WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By 
measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the 
amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced the 
first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of the 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

origin of structure.” - ScienceWatch: ‘‘What’s Hot in Physics,” Simon 
Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008. 

Response: This is NASA’s version of trying to turn lemons into lemonade. 
Whereas the Big Bang theory predicted complete isotropy and 
homogeneity for the universe, WMAP found some anisotropy and 
inhomogeneity. More astounding was the fact that WMAP showed the 
anisotropy (i.e., the dipole, quadrupole and higher multipole values of the 
CMB) were aligned with the Sun-Earth ecliptic and equinoxes. This means 
that the Earth is at or near the center of the entire universe - a fact totally 
against the Copemican and Cosmological Principles that form the basic 
presuppositions of NASA’s cosmology. Above, we see NASA avoiding 
this reality by trying to turn the anisotropies of the CMB into midwives for 
the universe’s galaxies. But as George F. R. Ellis has admitted: “And one 
must emphasize here that standard CMB anisotropy studies do not prove 
the Copemican principle: they assume it at the start.” 391 

Claim 8: WMAP has started to sort through the possibilities of what 
transpired in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, ruling out well- 
known textbook models for the first time. 

Response: WMAP did no such thing. It merely collected data. NASA 
wants the data from WMAP to conform to its Inflation model of the Big 
Bang, otherwise NASA would be saddled with the infamous “horizon 
problem,” which failure would nullify the Big Bang before its gets out of 
the starting blocks. The horizon problem is caused by limiting the speed of 
light to c (300,000 km/sec), as dictated by Einstein’s theory of Special 
Relativity. If light is limited to c, then one side of the expanding Big Bang 
cannot communicate with the other side, since they are separated by 
thousands of light years. NASA fixed this problem by adopting the theory 
of Inflation invented, with pure imagination, by MIT physicist Alan Guth. 
Inflation claims that the “space” of the Big Bang exploded by a factor of 
10 3 ° in 10“ 35 seconds. As the theory goes, this super-fast expansion of 
“space” allowed the light within it to be stretched from one end of the Big 
Bang to the other, without, of course, exceeding Special Relativity’s speed 
limit for light within space. There is not the slightest scientific evidence 
that such a scenario occurred, but NASA needs it to make their theory 
have any semblance of plausibility with their already “established laws of 
physics.” Additionally, one of the reasons that String Theory needs at least 

391 “Inhomogeneity effects in Cosmology,” George F. R. Ellis, March 14, 2011, 
University of Cape Town, pp. 19, 5; 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

ten dimensions is that it is hampered by a speed of light limited to c (3 x 
10 8 m/sec) by Special Relativity. The extra dimensions allow light to travel 
at superluminal speeds in some sort of hyperspace, but is required to 
remain at c in our common Euclidean space of three dimensions. 

Regarding the horizon problem, as one author puts it: “The 
‘cosmological principle’ was set up early without realizing its implications 
for the horizon problem.” He adds that it is “dealt with by the ‘duct tape’ 
of inflation...and almost entirely without support from observational 
data” 392 For a description, we will quote a popular internet site: 

The horizon problem is a problem with the standard 
cosmological model of the Big Bang which was identified in the 
1970s. It points out that different regions of the universe have 
not “contacted” each other because of the great distances 
between them, but nevertheless they have the same temperature 
and other physical properties. This should not be possible, given 
that the exchange of information (or energy, heat, etc.) can only 
take place at the speed of light. The horizon problem may have 
been answered by inflationary theory, and is one of the reasons 
for that theory’s formation. Another proposed, though less 
accepted, theory is that the speed of light has changed over time, 
called variable speed of light. 

When one looks out into the night sky, distances also correspond 
to time into the past. A galaxy measured at ten billion light years 
in distance appears to us as it was ten billion years ago, because 
the light has taken that long to travel to the viewer. If one were 
to look at a galaxy ten billion light years away in one direction, 
say “west,” and another in the opposite direction, “east,” the total 
distance between them is twenty billion light years. This means 
that the light from the first has not yet reached the second, 
because the 13.7 billion years that the universe has existed 
simply isn’t a long enough time to allow it to occur. In a more 
general sense, there are portions of the universe that are visible 
to us, but invisible to each other, outside each other's respective 
particle horizons. 

In standard physical theories, no information can travel faster 
than the speed of light. In this context, “information” means “any 

392 John P. Ralston, “Question Isotropy,” Dept, of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. 
of Kansas, Nov. 2010, p. 1, arXiv: 1011.2240vl. 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

sort of physical interaction.” For instance, heat will naturally 
flow from a hotter area to a cooler one, and in physics terms this 
is one example of information exchange. Given the example 
above, the two galaxies in question cannot have shared any sort 
of information; they are not in “causal contact.” One would 
expect, then, that their physical properties would be different, 
and more generally, that the universe as a whole would have 
varying properties in different areas. 393 

The Horizon problem 94 

As noted, modem cosmology seeks to answer the anomaly of light’s 
speed by adding Inflation into the Big Bang scenario. The theory was 
invented by MIT physicist Alan Guth in the 1980s. 395 It maintains that 


394 The above diagram is explained as “When we look at the CMB it comes from 
46 billion comoving light years away. However when the light was emitted the 
universe was much younger (300,000 years old). In that time light would have 
only reached as far as the smaller circles. The two points indicated on the diagram 
would not have been able to contact each other because their spheres of causality 
do not overlap” ( 

395 “In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just 
inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early 
universe by a factor of at least 10 7S in volume, driven by a negative-pressure 
vacuum energy density. The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the 
electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10 36 
seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10” and 10 32 seconds. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

inflation expands space faster than the speed of light (instead of increasing 
the speed of light inside space). As it is decribed in the literature, regions 
of the universe already in light-speed contact individually, suddenly 
expand into each other’s territory thereby allowing their individual 
boundaries (“horizons”) to overlap and consequently allow causal contact 
with each other. Whatever was on one side of the universe expands into 
the other side of the universe, and vice-versa. So the apparent solution to 
the Horizon problem is that the two baseball-like circles in the foregoing 
diagram expand and overlap into each other at t = 10" 35 seconds after the 
initial explosion. Essentially, whether they know it or will admit it, Big 
Bang proponents have invoked instantaneous creation, similar to that 
described in Genesis, to answer the anomalies of their theory. 

Claim 9: The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by 
WMAP appear “random however, there are several hints of possible 
deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed. 
Significant deviations would be a very> important signature of new physics 
in the early universe. 

Response: “Randomness” is precisely what the Big Bang theory did not 
predict. It predicted isotropy and homogeneity, especially since these two 
factors would preserve the cherished Copemican Principle. In reality, the 
“randomness” (i.e., the anisotropy and inhomogeneity of the universe) is 
what makes the CMB align itself with the Earth. This result is anathema to 
NASA. To preserve its Big Bang paradigm, it must have a completely 
different interpretation of the WMAP data - an interpretation that will 
conform to the Copemican Principle. In the end, NASA admits that it 
needs non-random events to coincide with its theory, which is why it says 
they “are still being assessed” (in other words, “we can’t explain them 
from the Big Bang model so we must make up some other solution to 
make it fit”). 

Claim 10: WMAP has put the “precision ’’ in “precision cosmology>” by 
reducing the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor in 
excess of 30,000. The three most highly cited physics and astronomy 
papers published in the new millennium are WMAP scientific papers - 
reflecting WMAP’s enormous impact. 

Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a 
slower rate” ( wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)) 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Response: In reality, WMAP’s “precision” has presented such astounding 
anomalies to the Big Bang theory that NASA should be holding its head in 
shame. That NASA has wiped its website clean of anything even remotely 
suggestive of WMAP’s real findings (viz., that the whole universe is 
oriented around the Earth, as represented by the multipoles of the CMB), 
shows that its goals are not to do good science but to promote its atheistic 
philosophical presuppositions by distorting the scientific data. 

Objection #24: Doesn’t tbe Speed o f Lig’bt 
Contradict Genesis 1? 

Here we will tackle one of the most common objections raised against 
a literal reading of Genesis 1. The objection concerns the apparent 
anomaly regarding the creation of the stars and speed of light. It is argued 
that, since it is established from modem science that the stars are very far 
away, so far away that light from the nearest star, Proximo Centauri, 
presently takes four years to reach the Earth as it travels 300,000 km/sec, it 
would have been impossible for the light from stars, which were made on 
the Fourth Day of creation, to reach Earth on that very day; and, in fact, 
Proximo Centauri would not have been seen until at least four years after 
Adam was created. It could further be argued that if the other stars are 
hundreds of thousands of light-years from Earth, then the age of the 
universe could not be anywhere close to the 6000 years that a literal 
reading of the biblical text demands, otherwise, we would not be seeing 
the light from these most distant stars today. 396 

On the surface this seems to be a very logical and worthy objection, 
and as a result, it has perplexed and paralyzed not a few biblical scholars. 
Their reactions to this apparent problem are many and varied. Some have 
been persuaded to abandon a literal reading of Genesis 1 altogether, or at 
the least, have tried to advance alternative literal renderings. 397 Some have 
moved to a theistic evolutionary interpretation of Genesis. Others have 
proposed using the time-waiping principles of Special and General 
Relativity to answer the anomaly; 398 while still others are so bothered by 

396 A time span of 6000 years (~ 4000 B.C. to 2000 A.D.) is produced from 
interpreting the ancestral lines of Genesis 5 and 11 as strictly father-son 
relationships. See my book, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-11 for a detailed 
study of this issue. 

397 Fr. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages, 1992. 

398 In particular, D. Russell Humphreys in the book Starlight and Time: Solving 
the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Green Forest, AR, Master 
Books, 1994. Humphreys’ bottom line is that “God used relativity to make a 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

the anomaly that they are willing to rearrange the whole chronology of 
Genesis 1. 399 

young universe” as he sides with what he calls “the experimentally well- 
established general theory of relativity.” He further suggests, “the universe started 
as either a black hole or white hole. I suggest here that it was a black hole, and 
that God let gravity take its course” (pp. 128, 127, 123, quoted in order). In other 
words, General Relativity’s dilation of time through gravity is the basis of 
Humphreys’ theory. Hence, a clock on Earth would measure the Earth’s present 
age as 6000 years, whereas a clock at the edge of the universe would measure 13 
billion years. In essence, Humphreys uses the mathematics of General Relativity 
to posit that the 13 billion years commonly associated with the age of the universe 
is an illusion created, but allowed, by the principles of General Relativity. 
Ironically, however, someone else who also employed Relativity’s principles 
came to the exact opposite opinion of Humphreys, which is not surprising, since 
in Relativity everything is “relative” (G. L. Schroeder, “The Universe - 6 Days 
and 13 Billion Years Old,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1991). Humphreys can 
have little argument against it since according to General Relativity, a person 
standing at the edge of the universe would think that his immediate vicinity is 
6000 years old and the Earth is 13 billion. 

399 In particular, Gorman Gray in the book The Age of the Universe: What are the 
Biblical Limits?” Washington, Morning Star Publications, 2005, in which he 
argues that the clause in Gn 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens,” 
denotes that at that time the sun and the stars must have been created, and that the 
text allows for an indefinite time-gap between the appearance of the stars/sun and 
the creation of the Earth. During this “indefinite time,” starlight is said to be 
traveling to Earth and, based on a speed of 186,000 miles per second, would have 
had enough time to make the multi-million year journey. To substantiate this 
interpretation. Gray further argues that the Hebrew niffV (asah) appearing in 
Genesis 1:16 and normally translated “made” really means “brought forth,” such 
that the light of the sun and stars is now allowed to penetrate to Earth, having 
previously been obscured by a “cloud of thick darkness” ( cf Jb 38:9) that has 
since been removed. This is similar to the view propounded by Hugh Ross (see 
Volume 3, Chapter 15 of Galileo Was Wrong:The Church Was Right), yet it must 
be rejected for the same reasons. There is absolutely no indication in the Genesis 
text that stars were created before the Earth, and it is likewise exegetically 
presumptuous to limit the definition of Gn 1:1’s “heavens” to the existence of 
stars in the heavens as opposed to the heavens itself. According to Gn 1:14-16, the 
sun and stars are placed “in the heavens,” that is, they are not the heavens but are 
attached to the heavens. The Hebrew phrase is tTQWn mxa which 

translates as “lights in the firmament of the heavens,” with the preposition “in” 
denoted by the consonant “3” prefixing the word i"p"i “firmament.” This phrase is 
repeated in Gn 1:17 (“And God set them in the firmament of the heavens”) with 
the addition of the word )ti] (“set”) to reinforce that the sun and stars are distinct 
from the firmament in which they are set. In addition, there is no “firmament” on 
the first day of creation, there is only the heavens that are filled with the water 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

At the outset we must note that it makes little difference if one bases 
his argument on the idea that the stars are billions of light years or just four 
light years from Earth. In either case, if the speed of light is given an 
unchanging value of 300,000 km/sec, yet it is agreed that when the stars 
were created on the Fourth day an observer on Earth would have seen their 
light immediately, then the light of the stars must have reached Earth 
either instantaneously or sometime before the close of the Fourth day. 
Even if we give light an extra day or two to arrive on Earth such that it 
would have appeared on the Fifth or Sixth days of creation, this does not 
provide an adequate solution to the problem, since the nearest star is, at 
least according to modem astronomy, four light years away. As such, the 
light from Proximo Centauri would have arrived four years after Adam 
was created, and light from stars that are farther away than 6,000 light 
years would not yet have reached the Earth, according to the biblical 

One counterargument is that after the stars are mentioned in Gn 1:16, 
they are not mentioned again in the biblical text until Gn 15:5, when God 
tells Abraham to look up at the stars and count them. The time period 
between Gn 1:16 and Gn 15:5 would allow star light to travel for the 
whole time from the creation week to the time of Abraham’s old age. As 
such, the total time of travel could have been two thousand years (4,000 
B.c. to 2,000 B.C.). If we assume light’s speed has always been the same, 
then, at the maximum, the total miles traveled would have been 3.5 x 10 16 
miles in 6,000 years, or 3.5 quadrillion miles. This distance could 
accommodate quite a few stars in the universe. In fact, it would more than 
satisfy the only empirical method of determining the distance to the stars, 
namely, stellar parallax, which, beyond 100 parsecs or 1.92 quadrillion 
miles, cannot be applied as an accurate means of measuring distance. 

It could further be argued that the alternative and more common 
method of measuring the distance to the stars beyond the limits of parallax, 
that is, the redshift of light, is simply an unproven scientific hypothesis 

surrounding the Earth, and as such, the heavens waiting to be refilled by both the 
firmament and the celestial bodies, on the Second and Fourth Days, respectively. 
Moreover, Gray’s contention that “brought forth” is a clearer translation than 
“made” of the Hebrew asah is untenable. Although asah has some variation in its 
contextual meaning, when it appears in creation contexts, its meaning is closer to 
“made” than it is to “brought forth.” For example. Psalm 33:6 [32:6] states: “By 
the word of the Lord the heavens were made [asah], and by the breath of His 
mouth all their host.” Here asah is used in the almost identical wording that 
appears in Gn 1:1 (“In the beginning God created the heavens...”) although in 
that case the Hebrew X*0 ( bara ) is used instead of asah , which shows that the 
words are exegetically interchangeable. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

that remains in the throes of controversy, and therefore no biblical scholar 
is required to accept or apply a redshift/distance relationship as an 
irrefutable scientific fact. Modem scientists are not even sure what light is 
or how it travels. 

Two astrophysicists have proposed a mathematical model for a much 
shorter travel time for light in the universe. Parry Moon of M.I.T. and 
Domina Spencer of the University of Connecticut introduced the idea in a 
paper titled “Binary Stars and the Velocity of Light.” The authors state: 

The acceptance of Riemannian space allows us to reject 
Einstein’s relativity and to keep all the ordinary ideas of time 
and all the ideas of Euclidean space out to a distance of a few 
light years. Astronomical space remains Euclidean for material 
bodies, but light is considered to travel in Riemannian space. In 
this way the time required for light to reach us from the most 
distant stars is only 15 years . 400 

The problem with all the above proposals, however, is that they will 
not allow light from the stars to appear on Earth on precisely the Fourth 
day of creation, yet the text of Genesis insists the opposite is true since the 
stars are included among the celestial bodies given the task of time¬ 
keeping (Gn 1:14: “and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days 
and years”; Gn 1:18: “and to govern the day and the night”). We know the 
stars’ role in time keeping today as “sidereal time,” and it is an essential 
ingredient in chronology for it allows us to have a contrasting background 
in order to measure the sun’s path around the Earth. So precise is this 
star/sun relationship that the sidereal day is always 4 minutes and 56 
second shorter in length than that which we keep by the sun on a 24-hour- 
per-day clock. 

Although we are not compelled to include distances beyond 100 
parsecs, still, since there certainly could be stars that are farther away than 
the limits our present parallax capabilities can judge, we look to additional 
solutions to the starlight problem. In other words, if there is a star beyond 

400 Parry Moon and Domina Spencer, “Binary Stars and the Velocity of Light,” 
Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 43, No. 8, August 1953, p. 635, 
emphasis added. By an exhaustive study of the binaries, Moon and Spencer 
concluded: “Velocity of light in free space is always c with respect to the source, 
and has a value for the observer which depends on the relative velocity of source 
and observer. True Galilean relativity is preserved, as in Newtonian gravitation” 
(ibid., p. 641). Perry Phillips has critiqued Moon and Spencer’s proposal in “A 
History and Analysis of the 15.7 Light-Year Universe,” American Scientific 
Affiliation, 40.1:19-23(3/1988). 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

the round figure of 6,000 light years away from Earth, biblical chronology 
(at least based on an unchanging speed of light) seems to have no way of 
explaining how that star’s light reached Earth during the Earth’s biblical 
time of existence. 

In searching for a solution, we must keep two things in mind: 

(1) We must never discount the possibility that the stars could have 
been created many thousands of light years from the Earth and their light 
could have been brought to Earth instantaneously by an act of creative fiat. 
It would certainly be illogical to argue, on the one hand, that God created 
the stars instantaneously, but then argue, on the other hand, that He could 
not perform a creative miracle and allow their light to stretch 
instantaneously to the Earth. If one accepts a divine intrusion for the 
former, on what basis can he deny it for the latter? God himself determines 
the boundary line for how and when His miraculous intrusion ceases and 
natural processes take over. None of us can set arbitrary limits on when the 
crossover should take place, especially in the very beginnings of creation 
when most events are dependent on God’s miraculous direction. One of 
the main reasons that modem atheistic science believes the universe is 13.7 
billion years old is that it denies a creative fiat at any time, insisting that 
everything, from the appearances of matter to starlight, respectively, must 
occur by natural processes. At some point, the biblicist must deny the 
premise of naturalism, whether he decides to do so on the Fourth Day of 
creation or at the so-called Big Bang, for even the most liberal-minded 
biblical scholar knows that something cannot come from nothing. Hence, it 
is no great stretch for the conservative biblicist to include the creative fiat 
not only of the stars themselves but also of the light intervening between 
them and the earth. 

(2) After we recognize that God could have made starlight appear on 
Earth miraculously, other biblicists may feel compelled to at least offer 
some naturalistic explanation for the starlight’s reaching Earth, if for no 
other reason than to cover all the bases and convince the opponent that 
there is no escape for those looking for a more naturalistic approach to 
Genesis 1 (e.g., evolutionists). As such, we refer ourselves to the events of 
the Second Day of creation, when God created the firmament. The 
firmament includes both the expanse of space to the limits of the universe 
(Gn 1:6-9, 14-19) as well as the space in the immediate vicinity of Earth in 
which “the birds fly” (Gn 1:20). The Hebrew word JTp" 1 raqia (firmament) 
denotes something hard and dense like metal but it also describes 
something ethereal and penetrable. Fitting the firmament between those 
two extremes means that we have a truly amazing substance in our 
universe. The best way to incoiporate the two extremes is to understand 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

the firmament as an extremely fine yet dense particulate substance that is 
frictionless and which permeates every part of the universe and constitutes 
its vast internal substructure. 

Scripture speaks of the firmament being transformed from its original 
dimensions to an “expanded” state. For example, Psalm 104:2 says that 
God is “stretching out heaven like a curtain.” Depending on the Flebrew 
passage cited, the expansion of the firmament is an event that: (a) occurred 
once in the past; (b) occurred in the past but was also a progressive event 
for a certain period of time; or (c) occurred in the past and is still 
continuing. 401 Of these grammatical possibilities, the scientific evidence 
shows that either (a) or (b) is correct since (c) would require that the 
galaxies must expand at the same rate as the space between them expands, 
but we do not see that phenomena in today’s astronomical data. Big Bang 
cosmologists who believe the universe is expanding do not have a good 
explanation for why the galaxies themselves are not also expanding. 402 

401 Based on the stipulation in Gn 1:8 that “God called the firmament heaven,” the 
term “heaven” is often interchangeable with “firmament.” In regard to the 
“expansion,” Jb 9:8 contains the Qal participle ITO3 which can refer to a 
progressive “stretching out,” and matches the progressive speech in the preceding 
verse: “the One speaking to the sun, and it does not rise and to the stars he sets a 
seal.” The same Qal participle appears in Ps 104:2 and Is 42:5 in a similar context 
of progressive action, whereas Is 44:24 uses the same Qal participle but could 
refer to a single act or a progressive action. Isaiah 45:12 uses the Qal perfect 1tJ3 
referring to a past act, as does Jr 51:15. In Is 51:13 the Qal participle is coupled 
with a past act (“founded the Earth”), yet Zc 12:1 uses the Qal participle coupled 
with two other Qal participles (“founding the Earth” and “forms the spirit of man 
within him,” the latter of which is a continuing action). All in all, the evidence 
leans towards the “stretching out” as an event with a definitive beginning in the 
past but in continual progress, at least for some indefinite period of time, and thus 
a process that did not cease on Day Two of creation week. 

402 For example, Stephen Hawking states: “It is important to realize that the 
expansion of space does not affect the size of material objects such as galaxies, 
stars, apples, atoms, or other objects held together by some sort of force. For 
example, if we circled a cluster of galaxies on the balloon, that circle would not 
expand as the balloon expanded. Rather, because the galaxies are bound by 
gravitational forces, the circle and the galaxies within it would keep their size and 
configuration as the balloon enlarged. This is important because we can detect 
expansion only if our measuring instruments have fixed sizes. If everything were 
free to expand, then we, our yardsticks, our laboratories, and so on would all 
expand proportionately and we would not notice any difference” (The Grand 
Design, 2010, pp. 125-126). This is little more than a special pleading. Hawking is 
admitting that he must limit the expansion to the space outside of matter instead of 
including the space inside of matter, otherwise his Big Bang will not work. But if 
the gravity of a single galaxy can stop the space within it from expanding, why 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Additionally, if, as modern cosmology believes, the speed of gravity is 
limited to the speed of light (3 x 10 8 km/sec), a universe expanding faster 
than the speed of light would have no gravity in most of its expansion area. 

Back to Genesis. The first question regarding the expansion concerns 
how fast it occurred. Since the sun and stars were placed “in the firmament 
of the heavens,” the firmament would need to be big enough at the dawn 
of the Fourth Day to house the sun and all the stars. As the celestial bodies 
were placed in the firmament, it would have continued to expand away 
from the Earth, and in the process it would have carried the stars with it to 
the outer-most recesses of the universe. 

If, for the sake of argument, we limit the speed of light to 186,000 
miles per second (= 3 x 10 8 km/sec) at the time the stars are placed in the 
firmament, and also limit ourselves to affirming that their light reached 
Earth on the Fourth Day, this means that the size of the firmament at the 
end of its expansion on the Fourth Day would be no bigger than the 
allowable distance light could travel in 24 hours (i.e., the 24 hours from 
the beginning of the Fourth day to the end of the Fourth day). As such, the 
radius of the firmament would have been no bigger than 1.6 x 10 10 miles 
(or 16 billion miles); and its volume would have been 1.256 x 10 31 cubic 
miles. If, as we will postulate momentarily, the celestial speed of light is 
much faster than its terrestrial speed, the volume into which the stars and 
galaxies would fit on the Fourth Day is very much bigger than a 16 billion 
mile radius. 

Within the distance of 16 billion miles, the light from the stars travels 
to Earth in a period of 24 hours or less. As such, we have satisfied the 
objection concerning how starlight could appear on Earth on the Fourth 
Day of creation. All that is needed now is to add the subsequent events. 
Consequently, as the starlight reaches Earth on the Fourth Day, the 
expansion of the firmament continues. The rate of expansion could then be 
accelerated in order to arrive at the size the universe is today. In any case, 
the expansion will cease once the universe reaches it optimal size, but we 
do not know when that termination point occurs. As the firmament 
continues to expand beyond the radius of the Fourth Day it will carry the 
newly created stars with it. The major point is made that, within the 
context of the expanding firmament, the Bible places no limitations on 
starlight reaching Earth on the Fourth Day. 

doesn’t the combined gravity of all the universe’s galaxies stop the space in the 
universe from expanding? The Big Bang allows the expansion of the universe’s 
space to overtake gravity for billions of years, yet it doesn’t allow this same 
expansion to overtake the gravity of a single galaxy for any length of time. This is 
much too convenient. It shows once again how Big Bang theorists fudge their 
numbers to make it appear to work. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Some might venture to say that a rapidly expanding universe would 
later cause havoc with today’s redshift values. That might only be true if 
redshift is proven to be an indicator of velocity and distance, but even 
then, modem cosmology does not see a problem with redshift values. 403 
Today, all indications are that redshift is being touted as a velocity 
indicator merely because that particular interpretation is required of the 
expansion needed for the Big Bang theory. In fact, the discoverer of 
redshift, Edwin Hubble, originally rejected that redshift is a measure of 
velocity. Since the time of Hubble, a 2010 paper by Louis Marmet 
catalogues sixty different theories for the cause of redshift. 404 One of the 
more challenging hypotheses for redshift is that it represents the energy 
level of the source of the light rather than the energy level after the light 
leaves the source and is disturbed by the environment. Astronomer Halton 
Aip has shown convincing evidence that redshifts are intrinsic to the 
object emitting the radiation and thus cannot be indicators of velocity or 
expansion of the universe. 405 Corroboration for Arp comes from a recent 
paper by C. S. Chen, et al, in which it was found that “redshifts of spectral 

403 As Hartnett notes: “The expansion redshift is the redshift that according to 
General Relativity results from the stretching of space itself and is usually defined 
by R<JR = 1 + z, where Ro is the scale factor of the universe now, and R at some 
time in the past. According to the Friedmann-Lemaitre solution of Einstein’s field 
equations, the expansion redshift only depends on the scale factor of the universe 
at the time the light was emitted and the time it was received. The fabric of space 
itself stretches between emission and reception. This is what is usually referred to 
as Hubble flow. The expansion redshift doesn’t depend on the rate of this 
expansion” (John G. Harnett, “Is there any evidence for a change in c?: 
Implications for creationist cosmology,” Technical Journal 16(3) 2002, pp. 91- 

404 “On the Interpretation of Redshift: A Quantitative Comparison of Red-shift 
Mechanisms,” Louis Marmet, Dec. 3, 2011. His abstract states: “This paper gives 
a compilation of physical mechanisms producing red-shifts of astronomical 
objects. Over sixty proposed mechanisms are listed here for the purpose of 
quantitative comparisons.” See also “A review of redshift and its interpretation in 
cosmology and astrophysics,” R. Gray and J. Dunning-Davies, June 2088, Dept, 
of Physics, Univ. of Hull, England. 

405 Arp has shown, for example, that high redshift quasars are attached to low 
redshift galaxies, thus showing that redshift cannot be due solely to velocity or 
distance. See chapter 8 in this volume for detailed information on Arp’s work and 
the ostracizing he has received for it from the Big Bang establishment. Aip 
proposes that quasars have an intrinsic red shift because they are surrounded by a 
cloud of electrons, which produces a red shift when light travels through it since 
the light loses energy to the electrons by means of the Compton Effect. Hence 
quasars may be much nearer to us than reported by Big Bang cosmology and, in 
fact, they have exhibited proper motion. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

lines...are influenced by electron density.” More specifically, Chen found 

when the electron density increases, the difference of the atomic 
energy level is reduced, and then the redshift is raised. The Hg 
atomic levels embedded in a density environment are influenced 
by the free electrons density. The electronic fields generating 
from free electrons compressed inside an atom screen the 
Coulomb potential of the atomic nuclear. Then the nucleus’ 
forces to the bound electrons are diminished, while the repulsion 
of free to bound electrons are raised and the intervals of excited 
energy levels 7.v\S’ to 6p 3 P° are diminished. Accordingly, the 
increase in density will have a substantial impact on redshifts - 
that is, the shielding to a nucleas is intensified by the 
strengthened electric field, then the attraction of the nucleus to 
its bound electrons is declined, followed by the decrease of 
energy level differences and redshifts. 406 

Interestingly enough, Hubble found that a non-velocity interpretation 
of redshift would also nullify Special and General Relativity. As he puts it: 

On the other hand, if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts 
are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and 
plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of 
the time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of 
spatial dimensions. 407 

Rad ial Translation and Centrifug’al Force 
as Possible Causes for Redskift 

The radial translation of the universe carrying the stars as well as the 
centrifugal force of a rotating universe on the light emanating from the 
stars also presents a most plausible reason for redshift. It has the distinct 
advantage of being able to incorporate the popular distance/redshift 
relationship as well as Aip’s discovery of quasar-connected galaxies 

406 “Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic 
line in laser-induced plasmas,” C. S. Chen, X. L. Zhou, B. Y. Man, Y.Q. Zhang, J. 
Guo, College of Physics and Electronics, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 
250014, PR China, accepted 1 Dec. 2007, p. 477. 

407 The Observational Approach to Cosmology’, p. 63. See more on Hubble’s 
analysis in chapter 8. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

(QCG) that appear to have an intrinsic redshift. It also explains why our 
sun has a redshift. Redshift in this model is due to the stretching effect that 
a continual radial movement of the star’s light around a central Earth will 
create on its wavelength, as well as the stretching effect that the centrifugal 
force of the universe’s rotation will have on the light. In both cases, the 
longer the radius of rotation, the greater the radial speed and centrifugal 
force. 408 Hence, the farther a star is from the Earth in the rotating universe, 
the greater the forces on the star’s light and the greater the redshift. In this 
sense, redshift is related to distance. (It could also be said that redshift is 
related to expansion, since the centrifugal force can be understood to be 
stretching out the medium through which light travels, although this is not 
related to the theory of “inflation” in Big Bang cosmology). Additionally, 
Aip’s discovery of high-redshift quasars connected to low-redshift 
galaxies presents no problem to this model since the quasars initially 
possess and emit an intrinsically higher energy than galaxies. The 
geocentric model predicts that the greater the distance a QCG is from 
Earth, the greater the redshift will be for both the quasar and its connected 
galaxy, and their redshifts will be proportional to their energy output. 

This model of redshift also predicts that stars at or near the 
north/south celestial pole will either have a very low or zero redshift, or 
even be blue-shifted. Such would be the case since the universe’s axis of 
rotation is the north/south celestial pole where little or no centrifugal force 
is present. As it stands, the star Polaris, commonly called the North Star, is 
precisely on the north celestial pole and it has a blueshift of -16.85 
km/sec. 409 Other stars on the north/south celestial pole need to be analyzed 
in order to verify this model’s prediction. 

By abandoning the popular “Big Bang” interpretation of redshift, 
consequently, there is no need for an expanding universe (and thus no need 
for the undetected Dark Energy or Dark Matter to propel it); there is no 
need for the universe to be 13.7 billion years old; there is no need to figure 
out the balance between gravity and expansion in order to keep the 
universe from collapsing on itself; and there is no need to abandon 
Euclidean space since there would be no need for curved space. In the end, 
it is no exaggeration to say that all of modem cosmology is built on the 
unproven assumption that redshift is a velocity indicator of the universe’s 
presumed expansion. 

Edwin Hubble, because he rejected the geocentric universe due to his 
philosophical convictions, opted for the equally dubious static and infinite 

408 The equation for centrifugal force is F = mv 2 /r. 

409 The hydrogen spectral line of Polaris has a wavelength of 6562.48A and lab 
wavelength of 6562.85A, with a difference of-0.37A. Using the equation AX/X x 
ewe have-0.37A/6562.85A = (-5.638 x 10' 5 ) x 2.99 x 10 8 m/s) =-16.85 km/sec. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

universe in place of the finite and expanding Big Bang. In reality, the 
geocentric universe takes the best of both Hubble and the Big Bang to 
produce a much more logical and stable system (a) a universe that is finite 
because it was created by God to last a determined time; (b) static because 
it is not expanding and therefore is not dependent on the anomalies of Big 
Bang inflation and redshift values; and (c) rotating and thus creating 
inertial forces that counteract the force of gravity and prevents collapse of 
the universe. There is one more important thing the geocentric universe 
allows, as we will see below. 

Distant Events: Are Tkey Past or Present? 

Some people object that celestial events observed on Earth, such as a 
distant supernova, happened a very long time ago but are now just being 
seen on Earth. In other words, we have the problem of determining 
whether the event occurred in real time (Earth time) or thousands or 
millions of years ago (i.e., the length of time it would take light from the 
supernova to reach Earth). If the latter is true, then the universe must be 
much older than the 6000 years allowed by a strict biblical timetable. This 
objection is based on the supposition that the speed of light cannot exceed 
3 x 10 8 km/sec. This speed, normally designated c in mathematical 
equations, is a postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity, but by no 
means is it a proven scientific fact. As we will see in stark detail in 
Chapter 4, Albert Einstein limited light’s speed based on his particular 
interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment and Maxwell’s 
equations, but his interpretation was not only biased against geocentrism, it 
was based only on the terrestrially tested speed of light. The speed of light 
outside our immediate environment has never been tested or proven to be 
limited to 3 x 10 8 km/sec. 

Quite ironic is the fact that later in his career Einstein himself 
admitted to an unlimited celestial light speed ten years after he claimed it 
was constant. He writes: 

In the second place our result shows that, according to the 
general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the 
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two 
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and 
to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any 
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take 
place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with 
position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the 
special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the 
case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity 
cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold 
only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of 
gravitational fields on the phenomena ( e.g ., of light). 410 

This begs the question as to how much “gravitational fields” can 
affect the speed of light. A popular book on Relativity provides an answer. 

If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material 
bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on 
the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the 
rotating roundabout [earth] as being at rest, the centrifugal 
gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, 
and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the 
velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10 8 m/sec under these 
conditions. 411 

410 Albert Einstein, Relativity’: The Special and the General Theory, translation by 
Robert W. Lawson, 1961, p. 85. 

411 An Introduction to the Theory’ of Relativity, William G. V. Rosser, 1964, p. 
460, emphasis added. Einstein was criticized on this very point by Philip Lenard 
in a 1917 open debate, later published in 1920. Lenard stated: “Superluminal 
velocities seem really to create a difficulty for the principle of relativity; given 
that they arise in relation to an arbitrary body, as soon as they are attributed not to 
the body, but to the whole world, something which the principle of relativity in its 
simplest and heretofore existing form allows as equivalent” (“Allgemeine 
Diskussion iiber Relativitatstheorie,” Physikalische Zeitschrift, 1920, pp. 666-668, 
cited in Kostro’s Einstein and the Ether, p. 87). Rosser notes that “It has often 
been suggested that a direct experimental check of the principle of the constancy 
of the velocity of light is impossible, since one would have to assume it to be true 
to synchronize the spatially separated clocks” (p. 133). Rosser also adds a note on 
the viability of the geocentric universe: “Relative to an inertial frame the ‘fixed’ 
stars are at rest or moving with uniform velocity. However, relative to a reference 
frame accelerating relative to an inertial frame the stars are accelerating. It is quite 
feasible that accelerating masses give different gravitational forces from the 
gravitational forces due to the same masses when they are moving with uniform 
velocity. Thus the conditions in an accelerating reference frame are different from 
the conditions in inertial frames, since the stars are accelerating relative to the 
accelerating reference frame. It seems plausible to try to inteipret inertial forces as 
gravitational forces due to the accelerations of the stars relative to the reference 
frame chosen” (p. 460). 


Chapter 2: Answering' Common Objections to Geocentrism 

In the geocentric system, a diumally rotating universe creates 
tremendous centrifugal forces which, according to Einstein’s own 
covariance equations, are equivalent to the force of gravity. As such, light 
traveling in this kind of superdynamic environment can easily exceed 3 x 
10 8 m/sec. As Rosser notes “light can assume any numerical value 
depending on the strength of the...centrifugal gravitational field” which 
has “enormous values at large distances.” In the Planck-ether medium of 
geocentrism, the speed of a transverse wave, such as light, depends on the 
tension between the Planck particles. 412 The greater the centrifugal force, 
the greater the tension and thus the greater the speed of light. The inertial 
force of a rotating universe increases as the distance from the center of 
mass increases. Consequently, the farther from Earth a star is in a rotating 
universe, the faster its light can travel toward Earth, the center of the 
universe. By the time the light reaches the environs of Earth, however, it 
will be traveling at the minimum speed of 3 x 10 8 m/sec since the surface 
of the Earth is at or near the neutral point of the centrifugal force created in 
a rotating universe. Outside of this locale, light can travel at much greater 
speeds than 3 x 10 8 m/sec. Since that is the case, we may be looking at the 
explosion of supemovae precisely when they occur in deep space. 

We can grasp this phenomenon intuitively by illustrating the 
stretching of a metal spring. If we hit the end of an unstretched spring, the 
vibration will travel to the other end of the spring in a certain time and 
velocity. If we stretch the spring to about three times its original length, 
the vibration will travel proportionately faster due to the increased tension 
in the spring. 413 Likewise, if we whirl the spring around in a circle, the 

centrifugal force stretches the spring. Similarly, a rotating universe 
stretches the ether medium within it. The greater the radius of the rotation, 
the greater the centrifugal force, and thus the greater the tension in the 
ether medium. This will result in a greater speed for light traveling through 


" ’ The equation for determining the velocity of the vibration is v = /q where v 
is the velocity of the vibration, T is the tension of the spring and yu is the mass of 
the spring divided by its length. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

that medium. For example, if at a certain distance away from Earth the 
tension of the ether is 100 times greater than it is near the Earth, this will 
increase the speed of light by VlOO or 10 times c. If the tension is 
1,000,000 times greater, the speed of light will increase to V1,000,000, or 
1,000 times c. 

For illustration purposes, let’s use a star, Alpha Centauri, that 
astronomers believe is “four light years” (or 23.2 trillion miles) from 
Earth. 414 According to the above equation, in order for light from Alpha 
Centauri to reach Earth in one day, the light needs to travel at 4,508 x 10 s 
m/sec, which is 1,502 times greater than c. This would require a tension of 
yj2, 256,004. Are such tensions possible? Yes, indeed. In fact, a Planck- 
ether medium could sustain tensions that are millions of orders of 
magnitude greater. Although the Planck-ether, at 1.61 x 10‘ 33 cm per 
particle, is incompressible in our environs, in outer space it can be 
stretched to very great dimensions and remain completely stable. But since 
it is so strong, it would take a tremendous amount of centrifugal force to 
stretch it. To measure the centrifugal force (CF) of a rotating universe, the 
equation is CF newtons = mv 2 lr. For the distance from Earth to the distance 
between Alpha Centauri and the maximum for stars measured by stellar 
parallax, the centrifugal force is about 10 68 to 10 69 newtons; and 
proportionately different for stars at greater distances. Interestingly 
enough, using the v = yffjji equation for tension, to increase c ten orders 
of magnitude (3 x IQ 16 m/sec), it would require T to be 10 61 or so. 415 We 

414 With the advent of the Hipparcos satellite launched in 1989 by the European 
Space Agency, its telescopes gathered 3.5 years worth of data on stellar positions 
and magnitudes, which were eventually published in 1997. Viewing the stars 
through two telescopes 58 degrees apart, Hipparcos measured the parallax of 
118,000 selected stars within an accuracy of 0.001 seconds of arc. This accuracy 
is comparable to viewing a baseball in Los Angeles from a telescope in New 
York. Another mission, named Tycho (after Tycho de Brahe) measured the 
parallax of a million stars, but only to an accuracy of 0.01 seconds of arc. As 
accurate as these measurements appear to be, the reality is, beyond 100 light 
years, it is hardly possible to measure an accurate parallax. Even within 20 light- 
years, parallax measurements are accurate only to within one light-year. At 50 
light-years from Earth the error could be as high as 5-10 light-years in distance. 
All in all, within a 10% margin of error, Hipparcos measured the parallaxes of 
about 28,000 stars of up to 300 light-years from Earth. For any star beyond 300 
light years, scientists are forced to estimate its distance from Earth by other 
means, none of which are proven methods of measurement (e.g., redshift). 

415 A Planck particle has a mass of 2.2 x 10'" grams over a length of 1.6 x 10" 33 
centimeters, giving a value for of 1.3 75 x 10 28 gm/cm. Additionally, since the 
Planck length is defined by the equation l P = y/hG /c 3 » 1.616 x 10~ 33 cm, where 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

note here, however, that it is not the stars themselves that are experiencing 
centrifugal force since such inertial forces are only induced if the rotation 
is with respect to the gravitational or inertial field. In this case, it is the 
Planck medium that contains the gravitational or inertial field, and it 
carries that field in its rotation. Only if the stars were rotating 
independently of the Planck medium would they experience centrifugal 
force. In fact, the Planck medium has such high granularity that it does not 
interact with baryonic matter. It only reacts with electromagnetic and 
gravitational activity. 416 Local phenomenon, however, such as binary stars 
or moons circling planets, experience local inertial forces due to the 
dynamics of a two+ body model. 

Other Attempts to Solve the St ar Light Prohl em 

Along these lines of argument we must also point out that other 
scientific biblicists who have tried to find a solution to the starlight 
problem have been unsuccessful because they have rejected the geocentric 
universe. For example, John G. Hartnett, a physicist from the University of 
Western Australia, outlines the possible solutions for the starlight problem 
as follows: (1) “the language of Genesis is phenomenological...stars were 
made millions and billions of years before Day 4, but. ..the light. ..arrived 
at the Earth on Day 4”; (2) “clocks in the cosmos in the past have run at 
much higher rates than clocks on Earth”; (3) “clocks on Earth in the past 
have run at much slower rates than clocks in the cosmos”; (4) “the speed 
of light was enormously faster in the past, of the order of 10 n c to 10 12 c”; 
(5) “the Creator God revealed in the Bible is a God of miracles.” We can 
add (6) to the above, since Harnett also includes Russell Humphreys’ 
“White-hole cosmology,” which says that “due to gravitational time 
dilation, clocks on Earth near the centre of this spherically-symmetric 
bounded and finite distribution of matter ran slower than clocks throughout 
the cosmos.” In another paper, Hartnett highlights the new theory (7) of 
Jason Lisle, which holds that “the stars really were made on the fourth day 
of Creation Week, and that their light reached Earth instantaneously due to 
the way clocks are synchronized.” Known as the Anisotropic Synchrony 
Convention model, it holds that “in a galaxy far, far away, the biblical text 

h is the reduced Planck constant and G is the gravitational constant, then a higher 
value for c, the lower the Planck length, which creates more tension between 
Planck particles when they are stretched. 

416 Interestingly enough, one might say that geocentrists have a Euclidean 
hyperspace, since a stretching of Planck particles by centrifugal force to allow 
superluminal speeds is really a hyperextension of space. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

must mean that the first four days occurred, in our usual way of thinking 
about time, a long, long time ago” so that “the most distant galaxies were 
first created tens of billions of years before the first day of creation of 
Genesis 1, and subsequently created closer and closer towards Earth at the 
constant speed of light c such that the light from all the galaxies arrived at 
the earth on the fourth day, for the first time.” 417 

Harnett finds flaws in each of these proposals and then offers his own, 
which is a variation of #3. We will call it (3a). He states: 

During Creation Week, all clocks on Earth, at least up to Day 4, 
ran about 10’ 13 times the rate of astronomical clocks....During 
this time the rotation speed of the newly created Earth was about 
1CT 13 times the current rotation speed as measured by 
astronomical clocks, but normal by Earth clocks. By the close of 
Day 4 the clock rates on Earth rapidly speeded up to the same 
rate as the astronomical clocks. All of this was maintained under 
God’s creative power before He allowed the laws of physics to 
operate ‘on their own’ at the end of Creation Week. 418 

The common factor in most of these models (except #4) is that time is 
understood to be flexible. Since in these scenarios time is understood as a 
calibration of the interval between one event and another, then it can 
change depending on one’s point of view of the interval. The opposite 
concept (and the one that Newton maintained) is that time is absolute and 
does not change due to different methods of calibration or points of view. 
Essentially, as time is understood as merely a calibration issue, the more 
pliable it becomes. The real prize, however is that making time flexible 
allows one to abide by Einstein’s postulate of Special Relativity that the 
speed of light always remains c (300,000 km/sec), and thus the theory will 
be more acceptable by mainstream science. 

417 “The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention model as a solution to the creationist 
starlight-travel-time problem,” John G. Hartnett, Journal of Creation 25(3) 2011, 
p. 56. 

418 “A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem,” John G. 
Hartnett, Technical Journal 17(2) 2003, pp. 99-100. Hartnett notes that 
Humphreys’ model (#3, which uses relativistic time dilation), and by implication 
Hartnett’s own model which is a variation of Humphreys’, “requires that the 
universe have a preferred frame of reference. There is evidence that this is the 
case and it appears the Earth is actually near the centre of the universe” and 
supports this galacto-centric model by quoting from Humphreys’ paper, “Our 
galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized redshifts show” (Technical Journal 
16(2):95-104, 2002). 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

In addition to making time flexible, some of the theories make the 
text of Genesis flexible. They do so by claiming that the stars were made 
millions or billions of years before the Creation began in Genesis 1:1. 
Their light, then, has time to travel at speed c and reach the Earth millions 
or billions of years later. Obviously, this theory alters the Genesis account 
by having the stars created before the events of Genesis 1 instead of on 
Day Four of Genesis 1. 

Recapping the theories we have: 



c speed 














#3 a 




















As noted, the problem with these theories is the assumption that time 
is malleable since its calibration is assumed to be dependent on one’s point 
of view, a principle stemming from Einstein’s principle of relativity. 
Theory #4 is the only one that alters the speed of light, but it does so based 
on the supposition that light’s speed has been steadily decaying since 
Creation and has presently reached its lowest level of 3 x 10 8 km/sec. 419 
Conversely, our theory proposes that the speed of light is 3 x 10 8 km/sec 
only in the environs of Earth, but is many orders of magnitude greater in 
the recesses of space due to the centrifugal force generated by a rotating 
universe. As such, only a geocentric system can explain the starlight 

4|Q According to Hartnett, there is no justifiable evidence for this theory, which is 
held by Setterfield and Norman ( 
Gs&feature=related and 
feature=relmfu). Hartnett critiques the theory in “Is there any evidence for a 
change in c?: Implications for creationist cosmology,” Technical Journal 16(3) 
2002, pp. 89-94. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

problem of Genesis, while the failure of each of the above theories stems 
from their opposition to geocentrism. 

Objection #25: Doesn’t a Rotating Universe Cause tke Eartk 
to Rotate in tke Same Direction? 

A logical objection to a fixed Earth in a rotating universe is that the 
tidal force of the latter would eventually cause the former to turn at the 
same speed. By analogy, a rotating whirlpool of water would seem to 
require whatever was placed in the center to rotate with the water. Galileo 
raised the same issue in his now famous Dialogue of the Two Great World 
Systems. Galileo took the part of Salviati so that he could present a 
conundrum to the geocentric system: “...if the heavens really revolved 
with enough force to propel the vast bodies of the innumerable stars, how 
could the puny Earth resist the tide of all that turning?” Salviati replies for 
the Copemican system: “We encounter no such objections if we give the 
motion to the Earth, a small and trifling body in comparison with the 
universe, and hence unable to do it any violence.” 420 

Galileo, of course, lived in a time that was at least two centuries 
before science discovered gravity and its center of mass. We noted 
previously that, according to Newton’s laws of motion, the center of mass 
will experience no inertial forces. Although the center of mass is an 
infinitesimal point, we can safely argue that compared to the size of the 
universe the Earth can well be considered such an infinitesimal point. 

While geocentrism has the non-moveability of the center of mass to 
support its position, heliocentrism has a reciprocal problem. For the same 
reason that one might question whether the Earth would be forced to rotate 
with the rotation of the universe, one can also question why, in the 
heliocentric system, the Earth maintains a sidereal rate of 23 hours, 56 
minutes and 4 seconds, each and every day, without fail for as long as 
records have been kept (barring millisecond variations that swing back and 
forth). Why doesn’t the Earth’s rotation rate slow down as it moves against 
a stationary universe? Although some would claim that space is a vacuum 
and thus exhibits no forces on the Earth to slow its rotation, the same 
argument could be advanced for why the Earth doesn’t rotate with a 
rotating universe. For both systems, the recent findings of Gravity Probe B 
for the Lense-Thirring effect have shown that inertial dragging from 
relative motion is almost non-existent. 

But the heliocentric system has a bigger problem, however. Recently 
it has been discovered that the rotation rate of some of the planets has 

420 Dava Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter, 1999, p. 156. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

decreased significantly over a short period of time. Venus, for example, 
has slowed its rotation rate by 6.5 minutes in the last ten years. Saturn is 
also suspected of a reduced rotation. 421 We can also make an educated 
guess that if Venus and Saturn’s rotation rate is changing, then some of the 
other planets may be changing as well. What is the cause for this decrease? 
Current astronomy is dumbfounded, since it was believed that the 
“vacuum of space” would allow the inertia of rotation (or angular 
momentum) to proceed indefinitely without variation. Internal 
disturbances on Venus itself could not provide an answer, since they 
would not be strong enough to account for a 6.5 minutes decrease in ten 
years. Even heliocentrists argue that huge earthquakes and tsunamis on 
Earth can only cause millisecond variations in the Earth’s rotation, but 
even then it always averages out to our present sidereal rate, without fail. 
The question remaining for the heliocentric camp is why other planets can 
vary significantly in their rotation rate but Earth has never done so. If the 
Earth had a 6.5 minute decrease in its rotation rate it would heat up very 
fast and most of the land would be flooded by melting polar caps. 

As we noted earlier in Objection #14, the geocentric system is very 
stable. It does not have a fragile Earth that could change its rotation and 
position in space for every cosmological bump it encounters. The reason is 
simple. The geocentric system has the whole universe rotating around a 
central point. Due to the inertial mass of the universe, the tremendous 
inertia with which it completes its 23 hour, 56 minute and 4 second cycle 
can neither be increased nor decreased. Like a giant flywheel, once pushed 
it will continue to rotate evenly, ad infinitum. In fact, to move the Earth 
from its fixed position one would have to move the universe itself. 

Mass as a Function of Compton an d deBrog’li Wav el en g’tk 

One reason why the Earth remains fixed in a rotating universe is based 
on the idea that the universe is a standing Compton wave 422 created by the 
fact that the Earth and the universe share the same center of mass. If the 
universe were a standing wave and the Earth were the node of that wave, 

421 “The European Space Agency, ESA, says Venus appears to be rotating on its 
axis slightly slower than it did in the early 1990s, adding 6.5 minutes to the length 
of the planet’s day.” ( 
be-slowing-139254678/173773.html). Saturn is also slowing ( /watch?v=Logz_EKCYaE). 

422 The Compton wavelength (1) is the wavelength of a body that is not moving. It 
is a product of Planck’s constant (h) divided by the mass of the particle (m) times 
the speed of light (c). My thanks to Dr. Gerhardus Bouw for sharing these insights 
with me. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

the universe’s wavelength would be the diameter of the universe 
(assuming 93 billion light years, according to modem astronomy). This 
means its Compton mass would only be 10' 66 grams. This is an 
infinitesimally small amount of pressure on the Earth and thus the universe 
would have no power to turn or move the Earth. In fact, since the Earth at 
rest can be considered a standing wave, its Compton mass would be 10‘ 46 
grams, which is twenty orders of magnitude larger than the universe’s 
Compton mass. Analogously, it would be comparable to trying to turn or 
move a 1.6 quintillion pound bowling ball by an air current that circles the 
bowling ball once every 24 hours. Moreover, since the universe is much 
less massive than the Earth in terms of wavelength, the universe can 
respond very quickly to compensate for disturbances that might otherwise 
move the Earth. For example, the revolving moon, the revolving sun, the 
planets that revolve around the sun, or an asteroid that collides with the 
Earth, could create inertial forces and/or momentum that seek to move the 
Earth. But because the universe’s Compton mass is so small, it acts like a 
vacuum to absorb all these forces. 

Interestingly enough, the deBroglie wavelength 423 for an object 
moving at 66,000 mph around a circumference of 5.8 x 10 8 miles (which is 
the sun’s orbit around the Earth in the geocentric system) equates to a 
deBroglie mass of 10' 46 grams, which, as noted above, is identical to the 
Compton mass of the Earth at rest. This makes the sun and the Earth 
somewhat of an inseparable tandem in relation to the rest of the universe. 
Not only does the 10" 46 gram equivalence of a moving sun and a fixed 
Earth confirm that the Earth is the universe’s center of mass, it shows that 
the sun-earth distance acts as a pivot point for the universe. As we will see 
in Chapter 3, recent studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation 
(CMB) from the 2001 WMAP and 2009 Planck probes have revealed that 
the whole universe is aligned with the ecliptic (the plane formed by the 
distance between the sun and the Earth) and the equinoxes (the two points 
that determine the axes of the universe’s rotation around the Earth). 

Fl uid Dynamics and a Non-Moving’ Ear tk 

Another possibility occurs under fluid dynamics. Let’s suppose that 
space is not a “vacuum,” per se, but contains a discrete material substance, 
which we call ether. (As we noted in answer to Objection #17, modem 
science has discovered that space contains ether). This ether is carried with 

423 The deBroglie wavelength Ck) is the wavelength of a body in motion. It is a 
product of Planck’s constant (h) divided by the mass of the moving object (m) 
times its velocity (v). 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

the universe as it rotates around the Earth. From what we know in modem 
physics, is it necessarily the case that the ether will drag the surface of the 
Earth and force the Earth to rotate? The answer is no. Using modern 
physics, Martin Selbrede explains it as follows: 

It is often objected that if geocentricity were true, and the 
rotating heavens were dragging Foucault pendula and weather 
systems around, why doesn’t that force pull on the Earth itself 
and drag it along, causing it to eventually rotate in sync with the 
heavens? It appears that this straightforward application of 
torque to the Earth should cause it to rotate in turn, but this turns 
out to be an oversimplification. As the heavens rotate, and the 
firmament rotates on an axis through the Earth’s poles, each 
firmament particle...also rotates with the same angular velocity. 
Ironically, this is precisely the reason the Earth can’t be 
moved. 424 

Selbrede goes on to explain the validity of above proposition by 
appealing to an illustration of the same principle crafted by L. I. Schiff and 
reproduced by Misner, Thome and Wheeler in the 1973 book Gravitation. 
The authors state: 

The gyroscope is rotationally at rest relative to the inertial frames 
in its neighborhood. It and the local inertial frames rotate relative 
to the distant galaxies with the angular velocity Q because the 
Earth’s rotation “drags” the local inertial frames along with it. 
Notice that near the north and south poles the local inertial 
frames rotate in the same direction as the Earth does (Q parallel 
to J), but near the equator they rotate in the opposite direction (Q 
antiparallel to J; compare Q with the magnetic field of the 
Earth!). 425 

424 Martin Selbrede, “Geocentricity’s Critics Refuse to Do Their Homework,” The 
Chalcedon Report, 1994, p. 11, emphasis added. In this 12-page rebuttal of 
Michael Martin Nieto of Los Alamos National Laboratory, who was hired by 
Gary North (a Reconstmctionist-Theonomist) to attempt to refute geocentrism, 
Selbrede has written one of the best defenses of geocentrism, using the very 
principles of Relativity. See Appendix 2 for the full paper. 

425 The formula to which Misner, et al. refer is stated on the same page (p. 1119), 
which is: Q = -iVx 5 = gA 1+ ?A 2 ) ^ [-/+ 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Misner, et al. offer an analogy that explains the relationship, along 
with adding that “This analogy can be made mathematically rigorous”: 
Consider a rotating, solid sphere immersed in a viscous fluid. As 
it rotates, the sphere will drag the fluid along with it. At various 
points in the fluid, set down little rods, and watch how the fluid 
rotates them as it flows past. Near the poles the fluid will clearly 
rotate the rods in the same direction as the star [/. e ., sphere] 
rotates. But near the equator, because the fluid is dragged more 
rapidly at small radii than at large, the end of a rod closest to the 
sphere is dragged by the fluid more rapidly than the far end of 
the rod. Consequently, the rod rotates in the direction opposite to 
the rotation of the sphere. 426 

The description of the above phenomenon is illustrated in Fig. 1 and 
Fig. 2. In place of rods we have used corrugated rings. The sphere in the 
middle represents the Earth in counter-clockwise rotation. At the north and 
south pole the rings will rotate in the same counter-clockwise direction as 
the Earth. At the equatorial plane, however, the red rings will rotate in the 
clockwise direction. Fig. 2 shows the same rotations from the top-down 

Fig. 1 : Earth is rotating counter-clockwise; rings at north and south poles are 
rotating counter-clockwise; rings at equator are rotating clockwise. 

Fig. 2: A top-down view of Fig. l's motions 

426 Misner, Thome and Wheeler, Gravitation, p. 1120. When the authors say “the 
fluid is dragged more rapidly at small radii than at large,” they are referring to a 
rod positioned perpendicular to the tangent of the sphere, wherein the part of the 
rod closest to the sphere’s tangent is the “small radii” while that farther away is 
the large radii. 


Chapter 2: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism 

Following this model, Selbrede shows how it confirms the geocentric 

Now reverse the situation. If we want to cause the sphere to 
rotate clockwise, we would need to turn the rods at the poles 
clockwise, and the ones at the equators counter¬ 
clockwise.. ..This picture is clear then: to turn the sphere, the 
rotation of the particles (MTW’s “rods”) at the poles must be the 
opposite of that at the equator....Flowever, in the case of a 
rotating firmament, all the particles are rotating in the same 
direction, with the angular velocity common to the entire 
firmament. The equatorial inertial drag is in the opposite 
direction as that acting near the poles. (See Fig. 3) 

Fig. 3: Depicts the Geo-Lock Position. As opposed to 
Fig. 2, all of the red rings are rotating in the same 
clockwise direction, which represents the daily 
rotation of the universe around the Earth. The four 
outside red rings represent the universe's rotation 
around the Earth's equator, while the red ring in the 
center represents the universe's rotation around the 
Earth's north or south poles. The four red rings 
represent the universe's counter-clockwise force at 
the Earth's equator, but the red ring in the center 
represents the universe's clockwise force on the 
Earth's north and south poles. As Selbrede notes, "The opposing forces are situated within 
the on-axis body, the Earth, rather than in contra-rotating equatorial and polar frames." 
The result is a neutralizing of forces to zero, namely, the Geo-Lock Position. 

Using calculus, one integrates the effect from the center of the 
Earth outward in infinitesimal shells, showing that the Earth is in 
fact locked in place, the resulting inertial shear being distributed 
throughout the Earth’s internal volume. It could be demonstrated 
that were the Earth to be pushed out of its “station keeping” 
position, the uneven force distribution would return it to its 
equilibrium state. 427 

Additionally, such a force would be more than enough to counter¬ 
balance any torque from the moon, the sun, or the planets as they revolve 
around the Earth. 

427 Martin Selbrede, “Geocentricity’s Critics Refuse to Do Their Homework,” The 
Chalcedon Report, 1994, pp. 11-12. 


"Concepts that have proved useful in ordering things can easily gain 
such a hold over us that we forget their mortal origin and accept 
them as unalterable facts....The path of scientific progress is often 
blocked for long periods by such errors." 

Albert Einstein 428 

"/ also fear for the soul of the scientific enterprise if we persist 
in ignoring the elephant in the room. Are we scientists able to 
follow the scientific method and admit we're wrong when the 
data say so? Or are we just middling priests of some Cold Dark 
Religion ushering in another millennium of epicycles" 

Stacy McGaugh 429 

"/ know that most men...can seldom accept even the simplest and 
most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the 
falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to 
colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they 
have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." 

Leo Tolstoy 430 

"All knowledge is interpretation." Karl Jaspers 431 

"The trouble ain't that people are ignorant, it's just that they 
know so much that ain't so." 

Josh Billings 432 

"The question of all questions for humanity, the problem which lies 
behind all others and is more interesting than any of them, is that of 
the determination of man's place in Nature and his relation to the 

Thomas H. Huxley 433 

42S Albert Einstein, 1916 obituary for E. Mach, Physikalische Zeitschrift 17, 101 

429 Stacy McGaugh, Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland 

430 Attributed, not verified. 

431 Quoted by W. Kaufmann in Existentialism from Dostoevsky’ to Sartre, p. 33. 

432 “Josh Billings” was the pen name of American humorist Henry Wheeler Shaw 
(d. 1885), attributed, not verified. 

433 Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature, 1863. 


Ckapter 3 

Evidence Eartk is in tke Center of tke Universe 

Ed win Hukble’s u Intol erable" Observation 

T he possibility that Earth is at the center of the universe was swirling 
in the minds of scientists for quite a while in the last century. Edwin 
Hubble, who is one of the 20 th century’s most famous and 

celebrated astronomers and for whom the 
Hubble Space Telescope is named, was in 
utter consternation in the 1930s and 40s 
when he discovered through his work 
with the 100-inch telescope at Mount 
Wilson, California, that Earth was in the 
center of the universe. 

As he examined the light coming 
from stars and galaxies, Hubble 
concluded that the spectrum of light, 
particularly the shift toward the red end of 
the spectrum, indicated Earth’s centrality 
quite clearly. Since Hubble was an 
avowed Copemican, he dismissed the 
geocentric evidence and countered with 
the following obstinate alternative: 

...Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique 
position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient 
conception of a central Earth....This hypothesis cannot be 
disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a 
last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we 
disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored 
location must be avoided at all costs...such a favored position is 
intolerable.. ..Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to 
escape the horror of a unique position.. .must be compensated by 
spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape. 434 

...there must be no favored location in the universe \i.e., no 
central Earth], no center, no boundary; all must see the universe 

Edwin Hubble 


434 The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, pp. 50, 51, 58-59. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist 
postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity.... 435 

Hubble's Expanding Universe 
Circa 1920- 1930s 





w. * 


* 0 




Velocity = Hubble Constant (H) x Distance 
li = 100b knt/sec/Mpc 

Fig. 1: Hubble interpreted the redshift of galaxies as caused 
by their velocities away from a central Earth 

Notice Hubble’s highly charged language. Although he admits it 
cannot be disproved, an Earth-centered universe is not only “unwelcome” 
but “must be avoided at all costs” and, in fact, it is a “horror” that is 
“intolerable.” As noted earlier, one scientist even calls it a “depressing 
thought.” 436 Notice also Hubble candidly revealing to us that “space 
curvature” was invented (by Einstein) in order to escape the geocentric 
implications from the evidence in his telescope of Earth’s centrality. Let’s 
look at his sentence again: “Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, 
and to escape the horror of a unique position.. .must be compensated by 
spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.” How does 
“homogeneity” help Hubble? It is best understood by noting what Hubble 
initially saw in his telescope as opposed to what he wanted to see. Hubble 
initially saw that the universe was isotropic, that is, one observes from a 
defined position and sees that in whichever direction he looks the 
landscape is the same. This means that the “defined position” is in the 
center, where the observer is, as if one were standing on a hill in the 
middle of a desert and turning around to look at the whole landscape. 

In the below picture, Earth represents the hill and the galaxies 
represent the landscape in an isotropic universe. Hubble didn’t want an 

435 Ibid., p. 63. 

436 Donald Goldsmith, The Evolving Universe, 1985, p. 140. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

isotropic landscape, however. He knew the implications of the observation, 
i.e., that Earth would be in the center of the isotropy. So Hubble proposed 
to eliminate Earth from the center by “restoring homogeneity,” i.e., taking 
away the hill from which the observations are made and making the entire 
landscape look the same. 

Fig. 2: Isotropic: looks the same in every direction as if one 
were standing on a hill and turning around 360 degrees to 
observe the landscape. 

Fig. 3: Homogeneous: looks the same in all directions and one 
is not standing on a hill to observe the landscape. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Hubble needed one more adjustment to make his no-Earth-in-the- 
center universe complete. Since his telescope did, indeed, show a 
unilateral movement away from Earth in any direction he looked, he had to 
remove any notion that the Earth was somehow in the center of this 
movement. Thus he added “spatial curvature” and placed the Earth on the 
rim of the curvature, far away from the center, so to speak. 

Fig. 4: Homogeneity & Spatial Curvature: all space is the same 
and is curved into a sphere that is expanding outward 

Imagine that the above two-dimensional disc is a three dimensional 
sphere, but there is no inside or center, only a surface where everything 
looks the same, as if it were an inflated balloon. 437 This is the curvature 
that Hubble invented in order to take Earth out of the center. Space could 
be “curved” as such based on Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, 
which said that the gravity of matter pulled space inward (or, as Einstein 
called it, “the waiping of spacetime”). Hubble claimed there was no matter 
in the center since he saw everything expanding away from him in his 
telescope. All the matter in the universe would be on the surface of the 
curved space and expanding outward. Even though this concept is 

4,7 Above picture courtesy of R. Humphrey’s article “Our Galaxy is at the Centre 
of the Universe, ‘Quantized’ Redshifts Show” in Journal of Creation 16(2):95- 
104, August, 2002. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

counterintuitive, it was the only concept available to Hubble and his like- 
minded colleagues to remove Earth from the center. It still survives today 
as the only explanation for the Copemican Principle. 

Fig 5 : Hubble's idea of space expanding like a balloon 

It is not difficult to conclude that the most gifted scientists of our day 
simply cannot overcome their prejudices and presuppositions when 
examining evidence that upsets their world-view. The thought of having to 
make an apology for the fact that science has misled the world for so many 
years is, indeed an “intolerable...horror” for today’s academics as well as 
it was for Hubble. As Van der Kamp observes: 

For theoretical thinking and concluding are not self-sufficient. 
When - as it has happened! - a prominent astronomer tells us 
that scientifically the Tychonean [geo-centric] system of the 
world cannot be disproven, but that philosophically it is 
unacceptable, then he bares thereby the pre-rational foundation 
of all human thought to be the starting point of his convictions. 

And that starting point determines his approach to his scientific 
labors, whether he is fully aware of it or not.. .his faith in human 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

thinking’s self-sufficiency misleads him into believing that this 
thinking can provide him with an unassailable truth. 438 

Mighty telescopes and super-sensitive scanners may deliver 
reams and reams of data - they deliver not a syllable of 
unassailable interpretation. At bottom we always see, as 
Wittgenstein put it, what we want to see. That is in astronomy: 
either a closed finite, an open finite, or a curved unbounded 



James Burke, in his book describing how Galileo changed our whole 
outlook on the world, states: 

Today we live according to the latest version of how the universe 
functions. This view affects our behavior and thought, just as 
previous versions affected those who lived with them. Like the 
people of the past, we disregard phenomena which do not fit our 
view because they are ‘wrong.’ Like our ancestors we know the 
real truth. 

Has the course of learning about the universe been, as science 
would claim, a logical and objective search for the truth, or is 
each step taken for reasons related only to the theories of the 
time? Do scientific criteria change with changing social 
priorities? If they do, why is science accorded its privileged 
position? If all research is theory-laden, contextually determined, 
is knowledge merely what we decided it should be? Is the 
universe what we discover it is, or what we say it is? 440 

To the question of what a geocentric universe would look like, Burke adds: 

The point is that it would look exactly the same. When we 
observe nature we see what we want to see, according to what 
we believe we know about it at the time. 441 

438 De Lahore Solis, p. 56. 

439 De Lahore Solis, p. 80. 

440 James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed: How Galileo’s Telescope 
Changed the Truth and Other Events in History’ That Dramatically Altered Our 
Understanding of the World, 1985, preface. 

441 James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, p. 11. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Perhaps feeling the pressure in light of the overwhelming evidence in 
his telescope, just prior to the end of his book Hubble took a cosmic swipe 
at Relativity and Dark Matter, and the universe that both envision: 

Thus the theory might be valid provided the universe were 
packed with matter to the very threshold of perception. 
Nevertheless, the ever-expanding model of the first kind seems 
rather dubious. It cannot be ruled out by the observations, but it 
suggests a forced interpretation of the data. The disturbing 
features are all introduced by the recession factors, by the 
assumption that red-shifts are velocity-shifts. The departure from 
a linear law of red-shifts, the departure from uniform 
distribution, the curvature necessary to restore homogeneity, the 
excess material demanded by the curvature, each of these is 
merely the recession factor in another form...if the recession 
factor is dropped, if red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, 
the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of 
expansion and no restriction of the time-scale, no trace of spatial 
curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, 
there is no problem of inter-nebular material [“Dark Matter”]. 442 

If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they 
stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small 
and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the 
other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies 
disappear and the region observed appears as a small, 
homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended 
indefinitely in both space and time. 443 



(c) Far 
(b) Medium 
(a) Near 

H I I 

Hydrogen lines 

Fig. 6: Redshift: The spectrum is shifted to the red end of the seven-color spectrum 

442 The Observational Approach to Cosmology, p. 63. 

443 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 17, 506, 1937. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

nebula in 



Distance in 


Ursa Maior 


1 . 000 , 000.000 





H + K 

22.000 km s ’ 


Ill 1 

II 1 

1 II ! 

III 1 

1 II 1 

39.000 km s ' 

61.000 km s 

Fig 7 : Redshifts of various stars and galaxies 

To use an old cliche, we might say that Hubble was caught between a 
rock and a hard place. If he admits that redshift is a Doppler effect, then he 
is forced to an Earth-centered universe that is “closed, small, dense and 
young.” If he opts for the position that redshift is not a Doppler effect, he 
is left with an infinite universe that does not run by the Big Bang theory or 
even the theory of General Relativity. The bare truth is, here we have one 
of the greatest astronomers the world has ever known admitting 
possibilities from his telescopic observations that are completely opposed 
to the views held today by modem astronomy. Of course, the first view 
suggesting an Earth-centered universe was “intolerable” for Hubble, which 
is probably the reason that just before his death in 1953 he confided to 
Robert Millikan (1923 Nobel Prize winner) that redshift should not be 
interpreted as a Doppler shift, and thus Hubble led the way for the 
emergence of the Steady State theory in the 1960s. 

Stephen Hawking, probably the world’s most famous living physicist, 
found himself in the same dilemma as did Hubble regarding the position of 
the Earth in the universe. He writes: 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever 
direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something 
special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might 
seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away 
from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. 444 

Stephen Hawking, b. 1942 

Since Hawking must give equal credibility to Alexander Friedmann’s 
first assumption (i.e., that the universe looks identical in whichever 
direction we look), he cannot deny the clear implications of that 
assumption - that the Earth is in the center of it all. In order to attempt an 
escape from this implication, Hawking proposes an “alternate 

444 A Brief History of Time, 1988, p. 42. Hawking says the same on page 47: “This 
could mean that we are at the center of a great region in the universe...” The book 
was published on April Fool’s Day in 1988, six years after he started writing it. 
Since then it has been translated into thirty languages and has sold close to 10 
million copies. A film has also been made as well as another book, A Brief History 
of Time: A Reader’s Companion. The latest edition. The Illustrated A Brief 
History of Time, has been translated into forty different languages and sold more 
than 10 million copies. This book was on the London Sunday Times Best Seller 
list for a record two hundred and thirty-seven weeks, longer than any other book. 
Hawking adds, however, that this does not include Shakespeare or the Bible. 
Hawking recently published his updated sequel: A Briefer History of Time, 2005. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might 
look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, 
too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. 

We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. 

We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most 
remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction 
around us, but not around other points in the universe. 445 

Paul Davies has also admitted the metaphysical and personal dimensions 
of the issue. Fie writes: 

“All cosmological models are 
constructed by augmenting the 
results of observations by a 
philosophical principle. Two 
examples from modem scientific 
cosmology are the principle of 
mediocrity and the so-called 
anthropic, or biophilic, principle. 
The principle of mediocrity, 
sometimes known as the 
Copemican principle, states that the 
portion of the universe we observe 
isn’t special or privileged, but is 
representative of the whole. Ever since Copernicus demonstrated 

443 A Brief History of Time, p. 42. Hawking is not the first to appeal to the 
“modesty” position. Hawking’s dependence on the “Cosmological Principle” to 
vindicate his position was appropriately critiqued by Van der Kamp: “...the 
cosmological principle.. .has about the same logical status as the view of an Indian 
in the Amazon jungles who concludes that, since he sees parrots in the palms, 
there must be parrots at the Poles” (Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, Jan-Feb, 
1979, p. 7). Hawking suggests there is a mysterious connection to the fact that he 
was bom three hundred years, to the day, after Galileo’s death. Accordingly, he is 
profuse with his admiration of Galileo: “Galileo, perhaps more than any other 
single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned 
conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy, for Galileo was 
one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, 
and, moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world” (ibid., p. 179, 
emphasis added). It was Hawking’s desire to emulate his three favorite scientists 
in A Brief History of Time, and thus he writes three short essays on Einstein, 
Galileo, and Newton, respectively. In each. Hawking reveals a deep-seated, 
ideological motivation, treating the three scientists as if they were persecuted 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

that Earth does not lie at the centre of the universe, the principle 
of mediocrity has been the default assumption; indeed, it is 
normally referred to as simply “the cosmological principle.” This 
principle underpins the standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker 
cosmological models. 446 

Since Elawking admits he has no irrefutable evidence for his 
alternative, his resorting to Friedmann’s second assumption rather 
than the first assumption is obviously an arbitrary decision. The 
criterion for his choice, he says, is based on “modesty.” In other 
words, Hawking wants us to believe that, of the two assumptions, he 

Expansion: Stage One 

Expansion: Stage Two 





0 0 






0 3 - 



0 0 







0 0 







The expanding universe without a center 447 

is purposely choosing the one that removes Earth from the center of the 
universe based on what he understands as the human virtue of taking the 
most humble position. This has become a common apologetic among 
secular cosmologists. Hawking isn’t the first. In 1972, W. B. Bonnor, 
faced with deciding between a non-centered homogeneous as opposed to a 
centered inhomogeneous universe, stated: 

It seems that [p%(distance) _17 ], if extrapolated indefinitely, is at 
variance with the Cosmological Principle as ordinarily under- 

446 Paul C. W. Davies, “Multiverse Cosmological Models,” p. 1. Australian Centre 
for Astrobiology, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia 2109, 

447 See CDROM for animation of the Big-Bang expanding universe model. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

stood, since it implies that the Universe has a center at the 
present time....Nevertheless, that we happen to find ourselves so 
near the center is uncomfortable for human modesty. 448 

In reality, this is merely a feigned humility; an attempt to engender 
the sympathies of the human audience so that the astronomer can appear 
noble and self-depreciating, and therefore more convincing; a way of 
making oneself appear gallant by choosing the less ingratiating option 
when in reality the choice is made simply in order to avoid the divine 
implications and harsh demands of an Earth in the center of everything. As 
we noted earlier from the remarks of Stephen Gould, man has been on a 
relentless quest since the days of Copernicus to keep Earth away from 
center of the universe, for the science community knows full well that 
admitting to a special place for the Earth means that Someone higher than 
us must have deliberately put it in that privileged position. Hawking more 
or less admits his motivations when he writes elsewhere: 

We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines 
events completely for some supernatural being, who could 
observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. 
However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to 
us ordinary mortals. 449 

448 W. B. Bonnor, “A Non-Uniform Relativistic Cosmological Model,” Monthly 
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society’, 1972, 159, p. 261. Bonnor was 
reacting to the article written by Gerard de Vaucouleurs titled: “The Case for a 
Hierarchial Cosmology,” Science, February 27, 1970, vol. 167, No 3922, pp. 
1203-1213, arguing that the position of galaxies in the universe is no accident, but 
follows a hierarchial pattern, implying creation by design. 

449 Ibid., p. 55. Interestingly enough, Stephen Hawking sees in the Big Bang an 
affdiation with religion, since it implies a beginning to the universe. He writes: 
“Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it 
smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on 
the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with 
the Bible.)” Suffice it to say, we will deal with Hawking’s claims about “official” 
teachings of the Catholic Church in the third volume, Galileo Was Wrong: The 
Church Was Right. For now, we can say that his claims are fallacious. In order to 
escape the notion of a beginning. Hawking has invented the “no boundary” 
cosmos, wherein the universe is a “wave-function” that merely “popped” into 
existence. Hawking arrives at this understanding by the use of “imaginary” time, 
although he admits that “When one goes back to the real time in which we 
live...there will still appear to be singularities....In real time, the universe has a 
beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at 
which the laws of science break down” (ibid., p. 139). This is the kind of dream 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Still, Hawking is not completely comfortable with the position he has 
adopted. Like a boy who steals from his mother’s cookie jar and gorges 
himself in the serene satisfaction that he was able to outsmart her, he soon 
discovers that his stomach is upset and his whole body racked with pain. 
So Hawking second guesses his own philosophy: 

It was quite a shift in our view of the universe: If we are not at 
the center, is our existence of any importance? Why should God 
or the laws of nature care about what happens on the third rock 
from the sun, which is where Copernicus has left us? Modem 
scientists have out-Copemicused Copernicus by seeking an 
account of the universe in which man (in the old pre-politically 
correct sense) played no role. Although this approach has 
succeeded in finding objective impersonal laws that govern the 
universe, it has not (so far at least) explained why the universe is 
the way it is rather than being one of the many other possible 
universes that would also be consistent with the laws.... Many 
people (myself included) feel that the appearance of such a 
complex and structured universe from simple laws requires the 
invocation of something called the anthropic principle, which 
restores us to the central position we have been too modest to 
claim since the time of Copernicus. 450 

Perhaps, as the old saying goes, Hawking wants to have his cake and 
eat it, too. He doesn’t want to accept that the Earth is in the center of the 
universe, but he would like it just the same if science could figure out 
some way of restoring it to the center without it actually being in the 
center. Until that wishful thinking becomes a reality, the “alternate” 
explanation for what scientists of his imagination see in their telescopes 
seems to be the mantra they have all adopted to escape an Earth-centered 

For the record, however, as recent as 2008, it was discovered that 
Lorentzian- and Hubble-related mathematics disqualifies Hawking’s non- 
centered alternative. Yukio Tomazawa of the Michigan Center for 
Theoretical Physics demonstrated that in Hawking’s attempt to escape a 
center “there is no cosmic microwave background (CMB) dipole even in 
the presence of a peculiar velocity. In other words, the observation of a 

world in which today’s scientists dabble, and yet they write about it in their books 
as if it is a reality all to itself; and the gullible audience accepts it with little 
question, for they also, having removed God from the picture, have no other 
choice but to accept the fantasies of modern science. 

450 On the Shoulders of Giants, ed., Stephen Hawking, 2002, pp. xi-xii. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

CMB dipole excludes such an interpretation of the coordinates for the 
Friedman universe.” 451 

Eerily similar to Stephen Hawking are the inner motivations and 
cosmological rationalizations of astronomer 
Robert Dicke: 

Particularly significant in the distribution of 
galaxies about us is uniformity and 
isotropy. The galaxies appear to be 
uniformly distributed about us. Not only is 
the distribution uniform but the above 
described motions with respect to us 
represent a uniform dilation. How is this to 
be interpreted? We might be tempted to 
conclude that man occupies some special 
central point in the Universe, that galaxies 

451 “The CMB dipole and existence of a center for expansion of the universe,” 
Yukio Tomazawa, University of Michigan, Febmary 2, 2008, p. 2. Tomazawa 
writes: “Lemma: There is no CMB dipole at any point of the universe in a 
cosmology without a center, in the absence of a peculiar velocity. Proof: This is 
almost self-evident. In any direction from a point in the universe, the distance / 0 
from a CMB emitter to a selected point becomes / after expansion and the redshift 
factor is given by 1 + z = 1/1 0 and this value is the same for all directions. Of 
course, differences in the redshift or the temperature distribution in the CMB 
measurement come from the structure variation of the emitters, which is the whole 
issue of the CMB phenomenon....Theorem 1: There is no CMB dipole at any 
point in the universe in a cosmology without a center, even in the presence of a 
peculiar velocity v p . Proof I: Seen from the rest frame of a peculiar velocity, both 
l 0 and / are Lorentz contracted by the same factor ^l-(v p cos0/c) 2 , where 0 is the 
angle between the emitter and the peculiar velocity, and their ratio in 1 + z = l/l 0 is 
unchanged.This is true for all directions Proof II: Relating the equivalent velocity 
of the CMB emitter v to the expansion rate 1 + z by Vl + v/c/1 - v/c = 1 + z, one 
gets v/c = (1 + zf - 1/(1 + z) 2 + 1 = 1 - 2 1/(1 + zf = 1 - 2 x 10" 6 for z = 1000. 
The relative velocity of the emitter and the peculiar velocity v p in the direction of 
the emitter is v - v p cos0/l - w^cosO/c 2 = v - v^cosO + (v/c) 2 VpCOS0 = v -0(4 x 10" 
\ycos0). It is easy to see that this result is valid in any direction. Proof III: An 
object that moves with peculiar velocity v p is at rest with respect to an object at a 
distance of v p /H 0 , where H 0 is the Hubble constant, which does not have a CMB 
dipole by the Lemma. Therefore, an object with a peculiar velocity should not 
have a CMB dipole. All three proofs give the same result. Another way to look at 
this theorem is that the equivalent speed of a CMB emitter is close to that of light 
and the speed of light is identical for moving frames. We have reached the 
important conclusion that in a cosmology without a center there is no CMB 
dipole” (pp. 2-3). 

Robert Dicke, 1916-1997 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

move away from us. An alternative inteipretation is that the 
Universe is uniform in structure and that all points are similar. 

Thus the Universe might appear isotropic from any particular 
galaxy in which man happened to be living....The mathematical 
transformation is easily carried out and leads to the conclusion 
that in the average the Universe would appear the same when 
seen from other galaxies. This is consistent with the assumption 
that the Universe is uniform and that man does not occupy a 
preferred central galaxy. 452 

Notice that in the last sentence Dicke bases his alternative explanation 
on the “assumption.. .that man does not occupy a preferred central 
galaxy,” rathr than any hard evidence at his disposal. The only thing he 
possesses that can give pause to examine his “alternative” is that he can 
produce a “mathematical transformation” that will make it a possibility. As 
we will see many times in this discourse, the pliable world of mathematics 
comes to the rescue for those who are looking for an escape from the 
observational evidence that places Earth in the center of the universe. 
Mathematically speaking, one could make Jupiter the center of the solar 
system and the universe, or Venus or Mars or Proxima Centauri, and have 
everything meet the mathematical specifications. Newtonian relativity, 
because it holds that everything is in motion, allows for any object to serve 
as the center insofar as the physical motions are involved. 453 

452 Robert H. Dicke, Gravitation and the Universe, Jayne Lectures for 1969, 1970, 
p. 55. Later, Dicke continues to puzzle over galaxy distribution: “There are 
peculiar puzzles about this Universe of ours. As it gets older, more and more of 
the Universe comes into view, but when new matter appears it is isotropically 
[evenly] distributed about us, and it has the appropriate density and velocity to be 
part of a uniform Universe. How did this uniformity come about if the first 
communication of the various parts of the Universe with each other first occurred 
long after the start of the expansion?.. .The puzzle here is the following: how did 
the initial explosion [the Big Bang] become started with such precision, the 
outward radial motion became so finely adjusted as to enable the various parts of 
the Universe to fly apart while continuously slowing in the rate of expansion. 
There seems to be no fundamental theoretical reason for such a fine balance” 
(ibid., pp. 61-62). We, of course, would answer that the galaxies appear as they 
are because they were created in that state, since it is quite apparent that science 
has no explanation how they could have evolved to their present state. Later Dicke 
admits that his Big Bang hypothesis could be “completely wrong” since “the 
observational basis for the analysis is meager” (ibid., p. 72). 

453 As Fred Hoyle reminds us: “Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no 
difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we 
take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

In addition, Dicke’s physical explanation is certainly not convincing. 
He states: “Not only is the distribution uniform but the above described 
motions with respect to us represent a uniform dilation.” Analogously, 
place yourself in the middle of a carousal. You will observe all the horses 
equidistant from your central location. Now imagine the horses expanding 
outward away from you, at the same speed, in concentric circles. It is 
precisely this pattern and distribution that Dicke sees in his telescope when 
he looks at the galaxies. But now, place yourself on the outer rim of the 
carousal. Since you are no longer in the center, you will be expanding 
away from the center with the horses. Will you see all the horses 
equidistant from you, and will they all be expanding away from you at the 
same speed? Obviously not. There is only one place, the center, in which 
equidistance and equal velocity can be satisfied together, and that is what 
Dicke saw in the lens of his Earth-based telescope. The conclusion is 
inescapable but Dicke, not willing to accept the face-value evidence, 
desperately seeks for an alternative. 

A few pages later, Hawking is again confronted with evidence that 
places Earth in the center of the universe. In the early 1960s a group of 
astronomers known as the Cambridge group, led by Martin Ryle, 
examined sources of radio waves from outer space. They found a variety 
of intensities. Their results led Hawking to conclude: “This could mean 
that we are at the center of a great region in the universe in which the 
sources are fewer than elsewhere.” Of course, as he did with the previous 
evidence, Hawking gives himself an “alternative” to the data, stating: 
“Alternatively, it could mean that the sources were more numerous in the 
past, at the time that the radio waves left on their journey to us, than they 


are now. 

That these kinds of decisions are based on Hawking’s ideology is 
confirmed in his book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, in which 
he and co-author George F. R. Ellis admit the driving force leading to their 
conclusions. They write: 

However we are not able to make cosmological models without 
some admixture of ideology. In the earliest cosmologies, man 
placed himself in a commanding position at the center of the 

relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions 
referred to different centers - in principle any point will do, the Moon, 
Jupiter....So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus’ 
book, De revolutionibus orbium caelestium libri VI, were logically irrelevant...” 
(Nicolaus Copernicus, 1973, p. 1). Once, however, there is an immobile object in 
the mix, then there can only be one mechanical and mathematical center. 

454 A BriefHistory of Time, 1988, p. 47. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

universe. Since the time of Copernicus we have been steadily 
demoted to a medium sized planet going round a medium sized 
star on the outer edge of a fairly average galaxy, which is itself 
simply one of a local group of galaxies. Indeed we are now so 
democratic that we would not claim that our position in space is 
specially distinguished in any way. We shall, following Bondi 
(1960), call this assumption the Copernican principle. 455 

George F. R. Ellis, b. 1939 

Downright fearful of geocentrism and desiring to keep the status quo, 
Ellis stated in 1979: “Any weakening at all of the homogeneity principle 
implies a preferred position for our world - which is what the 
[cosmological] principle was designed to avoid.” 456 Elence, the 
“Copernican principle,” nowadays camouflaged by the term “cosmological 
principle,” is a driving force among today’s agnostic scientists. It is taken 
as an a-priori truth to which the rest of cosmology must conform. All 
evidence must be interpreted in light of this principle. One author put it 
this way: 

455 Hawking, S. W. And Ellis, G. F. R., The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, 
1973, p. 134. Bondi, Hermann, Cosmology’, 1960. Bondi is very important to 
Hawking since, as we will see later, Bondi was the first to realize the implications 
of the Stefan-Boltzmann law concerning radiation emission, which, in turn, denied 
the possibility of an infinite universe, since radiation would also be infinite. 
Bondi’s model, which held that energy creates matter, was proposed in 1960 to 
satisfy the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and became known as the “steady-state” theory. 
By the same token, however, Bondi denied that there is no privileged position in 
the universe (i.e.. there is no center which is distinguished from other points in the 

456 George Ellis, “The Homogeneity of the Universe,” paper submitted to Gravity 
Research Foundation, Mar. 1979, p. 2. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

The concept that underlies much of modem cosmology is called 
the Copemican principle. Its origins can be traced to the 
assertion made in 1543 by Nicolaus Copernicus that the Earth is 
not the center of the universe. The modem, extended form of the 
principle was not stated explicitly, however, until 1948 by 
Hermann Bondi of the University of Cambridge.... A 
generalization of the Copemican principle has come to be known 
as the cosmological principle. It states that not only is the 
position of the solar system without privileged status but 
furthermore no position anywhere in the universe is 
privileged. 457 

There may be no privileged observers. Cosmology was not to 
repeat the pre-Copernican mistake of placing humans in the 
center of things....The large scale look of things from every 
point in the cosmos must in general resemble ours, that in any 
plausible model of the cosmos our perspective must be assumed 
ordinary. 458 

Two decades later, the same George Ellis, while allowing for at least 
the possibility of an Earth-centered cosmology, reinforced the fact that 
one’s philosophical persuasion plays the major role in deciding between 
the two. In an interview with Scientific American he states: 

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that 
could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct [for] 
you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, 
and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only 
exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is 
absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the 
open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in 
choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that. 459 

In a 1995 paper, however, Ellis seems to have been sufficiently 
dismayed by the confusion caused by General Relativity’s allowance of 

457 George Gale, “The Anthropic Principle,” Scientific American, vol. 245, 
December 1981, p. 154. 

458 Timothy Ferris, The Red Limit: The Search for the Edge of the Universe, 1983, 

p. 160. 

459 “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American, October 
1995, Vol. 273, No. 4, p. 55. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

alternate cosmologies that he suggested physicists “should reconsider and 
perhaps refine the dogma of General Covariance.” In brief, Ellis argues: 

The essential point is that while all coordinate systems are 
mathematically allowed, most of them are far too wiggly and 
unruly to be of any physical interest; for purposes of application, 
it makes sense, and indeed is desirable, to restrict coordinates to 
those that are suitably ‘smooth’ from a physical and geometric 
viewpoint.. .there is a preferred rest frame and time coordinate in 
standard cosmology, and using any other coordinates simply 
obscures what is happening. The Cosmic Microwave 
Background Radiation determines the preferred rest frame (and 
associated time coordinate) to high accuracy....The subject is 
completely opaque if other, ill-adapted coordinates are used. 460 

Here we see that Relativity’s builders cannot live comfortably in the 
house they have framed, and thus they seek to alleviate the difficulty by 
taking a page from geocentric cosmology, only in Ellis’ universe the Earth 
is not allowed to be the “preferred rest frame” for reasons he does not 
reveal, and thus the CMB becomes his crutch of choice. But it makes little 
difference upon which crutch Ellis props himself, despite the fact that he 
picks a rest frame that is, ironically, moving at the speed of light. He has 
shown us once again that Relativity is a contradiction in terms. Pure 
Relativity won’t allow “rest frames,” and if Ellis insists upon creating 
them, he merely exposes Relativity’s inherent weakness, that is, its 
mathematics proves nothing about physical reality. 

Still, although Ellis made at least some concessions based on 
“philosophical grounds,” Stephen Hawking, with the whisk of his 
ideological wand, turned the “Copernican Dilemma” into the “Copemican 
Principle.” It is obvious that he has no intentions of viewing the cosmos as 
an Earth-centered universe, despite the lack of scientific evidence for his 
own view. A special place for Earth is as distasteful to him as it was an 
“intolerable horror” to Edwin Hubble. Going a step beyond Hubble, 
Hawking tries to promote his view by making it sound as if, of the two 
cosmologies, his is the more “modest,” and thus the more legitimate. With 
all that we know about Hawking’s philosophy, it is not difficult to see past 
this smoke screen. He is merely using the cosmos as a mirror to reflect his 
own agnosticism. In the end, Hawking’s “Copemican principle” is based 

460 G. F. R. Ellis and D. R. Matravers, “General Covariance in General 
Relativity?” in General Relativity’ and Gravitation, Vol. 27, No. 7, 1995, pp. 778, 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

on false modesty, for although he gives the impression that his choice is 
from humility, in reality, it is based on a desire to escape from having to 
submit himself to a divine being who, his own evidence shows, placed 
Earth at the center of the universe. 461 

Although we must at least give credit to Hawking for admitting that 
recent cosmological evidence shows Earth as the center of the universe, it 
becomes obvious that he has admitted this information only to deny it 
later, with the sole purpose to educate people to his personal opinion that 
the Earth is nothing but a speck of dust whirling around in a cold and 
impersonal universe. His bias is confirmed by the fact that, although his 
1988 book A Brief History of Time makes a painstaking effort to list and 
explain all the notable scientists and their discoveries leading to modem 
science’s present views of cosmology, Hawking makes absolutely no 
effort at listing the scientists who have given extensive astronomical 
evidence of an Earth-centered universe, even though he admitted such 
evidence existed. This is rather surprising since Hawking admits to the 
vicissitudes of current cosmology in his book, namely, that his theories 
have led him away from the concept of the Big Bang as an explanation for 
the origin of the universe. 

Carl Sag’an 

Following suit, Carl Sagan, who wrote the Foreword to Hawking’s 
best-seller, A Brief History / of Time, engages in the same false humility 
which, in reality, is a clever attempt to rid himself of having any 
responsibility to a supreme Creator. In his book, Pale Blue Dot, these 
precise sentiments are summed up very concisely in the following 

461 Although he denies being an atheist, he does admit to being an agnostic. He 
writes: “These laws [physical laws] may have originally been decreed by God, but 
it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does 
not now intervene in it" (A Brief History of Time, p. 122). As noted previously, 
however, according to one biography. Hawking and his wife, Jane, separated 
based in part because she, as a devout Christian, could not tolerate his atheism any 
longer (as cited by John Horgan’s The End of Science, pp. 94-95, from Michael 
White’s and John Gribbon’s, Stephen Hawking: A Life in Science, (Penguin 
Books, 1993). It is certainly surprising that Hawking is permitted to hold a seat on 
the Pontifical Academy of Science in Rome. The Academy, which houses 80 
members, nominates those whom it desires, but the Vatican must approve all 
nominees. In 1975, Hawking received the “Pius XII medal" from Pope Paul VI as 
“a Young Scientist for distinguished work." In 1986, Hawking met with the Pope 
again, where he was admitted to the Pontifical Academy of Science. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena....Our 
posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we 

have some privileged position in 
the Universe, are challenged by 
this point of pale light. Our planet 
is a lonely speck in the great 
enveloping cosmic dark. In our 
obscurity, in all this vastness, 
there I see no hint that help will 
come from elsewhere to save us 
from ourselves. 462 

From an article in Time magazine: 

As long as there have been 
humans we have searched for our 
place in the cosmos. Where are 
we? Who are we? We find that we 
live on an insignificant planet of a 
humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten 
comer of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than 
people. 463 

To Sagan, “we are, all of us, descended from a single and common 
instance of the origin of life in the early history of our planet.” 464 We are 
“only custodians for a moment of a world that is itself no more than a mote 
of dust in a universe incomprehensively vast and old.” 465 Fie concludes: 
“neither we nor our planet enjoys a privileged position in nature.” 466 In his 
latest posthumous publication, The Varieties of Scientific Experience , 467 
Sagan continues the same drumbeat. A chapter titled; The Retreat from 
Copernicus: A Modern Loss of Nen>e displays Sagan’s fear and 
consternation that modem science may have to turn back the clock on 
Copernicus because of all the new scientific data indicating that the Earth 
is, indeed, the central and significant part of the cosmos. 

Carl Sagan: 1934-1996 

462 Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, 1977, p. 9. 

463 “A Gift for Vividness,” Carl Sagan, Time Magazine, Oct. 20, 1980, p. 61. 

464 Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 38. 

465 Carl Sagan and Ann Dmyan, Comet, 1985, p. 367. 

466 Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 190. 

467 Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the 
Search for God, ed. Ann Dmyan, 2006, pp. 33-62. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

J. Rick ar d Gott 

This glum picture of Earth as a lost child in a thick forest of galaxies 
is the preference of almost all scientists today. Another is astrophysicist J. 
Richard Gott III from Princeton University. Gott more or less admits that 
Copemicanism and Darwinism are the two pillars that hold up agnostic 
science today. Mimicking the wording and cadence of Sagan, he writes: 

The Copemican revolution taught us that it was a mistake to 
assume, without sufficient reason, that we occupy a privileged 

position in the universe. Darwin 
showed that, in terms of origin, we 
are not privileged above other 
species. Our position around an 
ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy 
in an ordinary supercluster 
continues to look less and less 
special. The idea that we are not 
located in a special spatial location 
has been crucial in 
cosmology.. ..In astronomy the 
Copemican principle works 
because, of all the places for intelligent observers to be, there are 
by definition only a few special places and many nonspecial 
places, so you are likely to be in a nonspecial place . 468 

J. Richard Gott, b. 1947 

Richard Feynman, one of the more famous of modem physicists, 
admits much the same: 

468 J. Richard Gott III, “Implications of the Copemican Principle for our Future 
Prospects,” Nature, May 27, 1993, vol. 363, p. 315. The ellipse contains: 
“...leading directly to the homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann cosmological 
models in general relativity theory which have been remarkably successful in 
predicting the existence and spectium of the cosmic microwave background 
radiation.” In his five-page article Gott goes into a long pedantic calculation of 
how long the human species will last. Remarking on Brandon Carter’s 
introduction of the idea in 1983, Gott writes: “Interestingly, Carter’s argument 
depends implicitly on the idea presented formally here: that according to the 
Copemican principle, among all intelligent observers (including those not yet 
bom) you should not be special....Let us formalize this as the ‘Copemican 
anthropic principle” (ibid., p. 316). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

I suspect that the assumption of uniformity 
of the universe reflects a prejudice bom of a 
sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas. 
When men admitted the earth was not the 
center of the universe, they clung for a while 
to a heliocentric universe, only to find that 
the sun was an ordinary star much like any 
other star, occupying an ordinary (not 
central!) place within a galaxy which is not 
an extraordinary galaxy.. ..It would be embarrassing to find, after 
stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in 
an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is 
extraordinary....To avoid embarrassment we cling to the 
hypothesis of uniformity. 469 

We see that Copemicanism has developed into far more than 
identifying the one particular celestial body that revolves around another 
celestial body. Copemicanism is nothing less than the foundation for 
modem man’s view of himself: a lonely being who, by time and chance, is 
placed on a remote island in space with no more thought about his reason 
for existence and ultimate destiny than the stars from which he thinks he 
evolved. Rather than taking joy in the fact that God made man in his own 
image and placed him at the center of his creation, today’s atheists and 
agnostics seek to remove man to the remote parts of the universe and place 
him on the same level as star dust. Copernicus has, indeed, turned the 
world upside down, both literally and figuratively. Fortunately, as we shall 
see, the same science that was used to promote Copernicus now seeks to 
dethrone him, and it is only a matter of time until that happens. 

The Big' Bang' Dil emma: Dari? Energy or Geocentrism? 

Modem Science at a Crossroads 

The most significant scientific evidence that is challenging 
Copernican cosmology hails from that gathered by astronomers 
themselves. In short, they are increasingly confronted with evidence in 
their own Big Bang model that is forced to put the Earth in the center of 
the universe in order to escape the physical anomalies. For example, in a 
2008 paper written by three astrophysicists from Oxford, a centrally 
located Earth was far simpler and practical than the “Dark Energy” model 

469 Richard Feynman, et al, Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, Addison-Wesley, 
1995, p. 166. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

currently being used to sustain the Copemican model. ScienceDaily put it 
in simple terms for the layman: 

Dark energy is at the heart of one of the greatest mysteries of 
modem physics, but it may be nothing more than an illusion, 
according to physicists at Oxford University. The problem facing 
astrophysicists is that they have to explain why the universe 
appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. The most 
popular explanation is that some sort of force is pushing the 
acceleration of the universe’s expansion. That force is generally 
attributed to a mysterious dark energy. Although dark energy 
may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are 
proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out 
that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the 
universe - specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of 
matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the 
Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely 
held tenets in physics. Copernicus was among the first scientists 
to argue that we’re not in a special place in the universe, and that 
any theory that suggests that we’re special is most likely wrong. 
The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth- 
centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun- 
centered model. Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it’s 
consistent with the venerable Copemican Principle. The proposal 

470 Picture courtesy of New Scientist magazine at http://www.newscientist 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, 
is likely to shock many scientists. 471 

With the same vigor as Edwin Hubble, recently deceased 
astrophysicist, Hermann Bondi, had also tried to stem the tide of 
geocentric cosmology by stating in his 1952 book, Cosmology> (published 
by Oxford’s rival, Cambridge University Press): “the Earth is not in a 
central, specially favored position.” Bondi hadn’t proved this view; rather, 
it was merely a scientific presupposition, a foundation from which to 
interpret all the data that telescopes were gathering, known simply as the 
“Cosmological Principle” or what is sometimes called the “Copemican 
Principle.” There was also a second thesis at work, what we might call the 
“Einsteinian Principle,” that is, the universe obeyed the Special and 
General Relativistic equations of Albert Einstein. 472 In this model, the 
universe has been expanding since the proposed Big Bang occurred 13.7 
billion years ago. Based on both the Copemican and Einsteinian principles, 
a grid to measure the universe’s expansion was invented by three 
physicists, which became known as the “Friedmann-Walker-Robertson 
(FRW) metric,” 473 but the expansion is only possible, as Clifton, et al, say, 

...if a fraction of p is in the form of a smoothly distributed and 
gravitationally repulsive exotic substance, often referred to as 
Dark Energy. The existence of such an unusual substance is 
unexpected, and requires previously unimagined amounts of 
fine-tuning in order to reproduce the observations. Nonetheless, 

471 “Dark Energy: Is it Merely an Illusion?” ScienceDaily, Sept. 29, 2008, citing 
the article by Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Gerreira, and Kate Land, “Living in a 
Void: Testing the Copemican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” Physical 
Review Letters, 101, 131302 (2008) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.l01.131302. 

472 As Clifton notes: “Another possibility is that dark energy is an artifact of the 
mathematical approximations that cosmologists routinely use. To calculate the 
cosmic expansion rate, we typically count up how much matter a region of space 
contains, divide by the volume of the region and arrive at the average density. We 
then insert this average density into Einstein’s equations for gravity and determine 
the averaged expansion rate of the universe....The problem is that solving 
Einstein’s equations for an averaged matter distribution is not the same as solving 
for the real matter distribution and then averaging the resulting geometry. In other 
words, we average and then solve, when really we should solve and then average” 
(“Does Dark Energy Really Exist,” Scientific American, April 2009, p. 55). 

473 H 2 = 87tGp/3 - k/a 1 , where H is the Hubble rate, p is the energy density, k is the 
curvature of space. The scale factor can then be determined by observing the 
luminosity distance of astrophysical objects: H 0 D L = cz + 'A{\ - q {) )cz\ where q is 
the deceleration rate and subscript O denotes the value of a quantity today {ibid). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

dark energy has been incorporated into the standard 
cosmological model, known as ACDM. 

Clifton then shows that the tweaking required to get the Dark Energy 
model working is wholly unnecessary if one simply rejects the first 
principle of cosmology, the Copernican principle: 

An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to 
review the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In 
particular, it has been proposed that the SNe observations could 
be accounted for without dark energy if our local environment 
were emptier than the surrounding Universe, i.e., if we were to 
live in a void. 474 This explanation for the apparent acceleration 
does not invoke any exotic substances, extra dimensions, or 
modifications to gravity - but it does require a rejection of the 
Copernican Principle. We would be required to live near the 
center of a spherically symmetric under-density, on a scale of the 
same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. Such a 
situation would have profound consequences for the 
interpretation of all cosmological observations, and would 
ultimately mean that we could not infer the properties of the 
Universe at large from what we observe locally. 

Within the standard inflationary cosmological model the 
probability of large, deep voids occurring is extremely small. 
However, it can be argued that the center of a large underdensity 
is the most likely place for observers to find themselves. 475 In 
this case, finding ourselves in the center of a giant void would 
violate the Copernican principle, that we are not in a special 
place... 476 

New Scientist wasted no time in laying out the cosmological and 
historical implications of this study: 

474 Here Clifton, et al. cite: S. Alexander, T. Biswas and A. Notari at 
[arXiv:0712.0370]; and H. Alnes, M. Amarzguioui and 0. Gron in Physical 
Review D73, 083519 (2006); and J. Garcia-Dellido & T. Jaugboelle in Journal of 
Cosmology’ and Astroparticle Physics 04, 003 (2008). 

475 Here Clifton, et al. cite A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde and A. Mezhlumian in 
Physical Letters B345, 203 (1995). 

476 “Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” 
Physical Review Letters, 101, 131302 (2008) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

It was the evolutionary theory of its age. A revolutionary 
hypothesis that undermined the cherished notion that we humans 
are somehow special, driving a deep wedge between science and 
religion. The philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the 
stake for espousing it; Galileo Galilei, the most brilliant scientist 
of his age, was silenced. But Nicolaus Copernicus’s idea that 
Earth was just one of many planets orbiting the sun - and so 
occupied no exceptional position in the cosmos - has endured 
and become a foundation stone of our understanding of the 
universe. Could it actually be wrong, though? At first glance, 
that question might seem heretical, or downright silly.. ..And that 
idea, some cosmologists point out, has not been tested beyond all 
doubt - yet. 

When we add to this the fact that no one 
has ever found physical evidence of the much 
needed Dark Energy to make the 
Copemican/Einsteinian model work, it is clear 
that current cosmology is merely a desperate 
attempt to avoid the simplest solution to their 
own Big Bang data - a geocentric universe. 
Lawrence Krauss reluctantly admitted the 
geocentric implications when he commented in 
USA Today on a paper by Temple & Smoller showing equations that make 
Dark Energy superfluous. Krauss concluded that the only way the 
equations could work is if earth is “literally at the center of the universe, 
which is to say the least, unusual.” 477 In another article Clifton and Ferreira 

477 Dan Vergano, “Mystery Solved: Dark Energy Isn’t There”, USA Today, 
Science and Space News (Aug 2009). Temple and Smoller posit that our galaxy 
sits inside an expansion wave or ripple of space with a very low density. The wave 
is said to be caused by the Big Bang which, when it moved through the universe, 
created a low density ripple several tens of millions of light years across and 
which now envelops the Milky Way. The matter trapped in the front of the wave 
was pushed outward, which later formed stars and galaxies. When light from these 
stars reaches Earth, it appears much dimmer than expected because the stars are 
farther away from us than they would have been if the density wave had not 
pushed them outward. This model is then used to explain why, without the benefit 
of an accelerated universe courtesy of Dark Energy to propel it, the distance of 
supernovae measured in 1998 was so much greater than expected. (Proceeding of 
the National Academy of Sciences, August 2009). Our interest here is twofold. 
First, despite the Big Bang origin of the Temple and Smoller void area, the 
geocentric model is very favorable to the void area concept. Second, we note the 
adversity to their theory from notable cosmologists simply because it does not 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

add: “To entertain the notion that we may, in fact, have a special location 
in the universe is, for many, unthinkable.” 478 Indeed. These sentiments 
were precisely what Edwin Hubble expressed when he actually saw a low- 
density matter distribution around the earth in 1929. He exclaimed: 

Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position 
in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception 
of a central Earth....This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it 
is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in 
order to save the phenomena. 479 

Another commentator put it this way: 

Astronomers will find it hard to settle that troubling sensation in 
the pit of their stomachs. The truth is that when it comes to 
swallowing uncomfortable ideas, dark energy may turn out to be 
a sugar-coated doughnut compared to a rejection of the 
Copernican principle.” 480 

New Scientist shows why even this sugar-coated phase gives 
astronomers a queasy feeling: 

This startling possibility can be accommodated by the standard 
cosmological equations, but only at a price. That price is 
introducing dark energy - an unseen energy pervading space that 
overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating expansion. Dark 
Energy is problematic. No one really knows what it is. We can 
make an educated guess, and use quantum theory to estimate 
how much of it there might be, but then we overshoot by an 
astounding factor of 10 120 . That is grounds enough, says George take a hard look at our assumptions about the universe 

follow the dogmas of the Copernican Principle and the Friedmann “homogeneity” 
solutions to Einstein’s equations. As Dragan Huterer of the University of Michgan 
complained: “We want homogeneity in the equations, because that’s what we 
observe in the sky...You have to wonder why we are in the middle of this 
[ripple]? Why not somebody else.” Alexey Vikhlinin of Harvard-Smithsonian 
Center for Astrophysics stated: “The price that has to be paid is a violation of the 
Copernican Principle...” (Ker Than, “Dark Energy’s Demise? New Theory 
Doesn’t Use the Force,” National Geographic News, August, 18, 2009). 

478 “Does Dark Energy Really Exist,” Scientific American, April 2009, p. 48. 

479 The Observational Approach to Cosmology’, 1937, pp. 50, 51, 58-59. 

480 “Dark Energy and the Bitterest Pill,” July 14, 2008 at the Physics arXiv blog. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

and our place in it. “If we analyse the supernova data by 
assuming the Copemican principle is correct and get out 
something unphysical, I think we should start questioning the 
Copemican principle....Whatever our theoretical predilections, 
they will in the end have to give way to the observational 

So what would it mean if...the outcome were that the 
Copemican principle is wrong? It would certainly require a 
seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe....If 
the Copemican Principle fails, all that goes with that [the Big 
Bang] goes out the window too....Cosmology would be back at 
the drawing board. If we are in a void, answering how we came 
to be in such a privileged spot in the universe would be even 
trickier. 481 

Actually, it’s not really that “tricky.” As Robert Caldwell of 
Dartmouth College said in remarking on the crossroads at which modem 
cosmology finds itself: “It would be great if there were someone out there 
who could look back at us and tell us if we’re in a void.” 482 The truth is, 
Someone has already told us the Earth was in a privileged spot, many 
years ago in a book, oddly enough, called Genesis, but that is a subject 
treated in Volume II of this series. 

Discovery of tke Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation; 

Isotropy and Eartk-Centeredness 

In 1965, Amo Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the Cosmic 
Microwave Background Radiation (CMB). 483 It was hailed as one of the 
greatest discoveries of mankind, for it was interpreted to be the residual 
energy left over from the Big Bang that was said to have occurred billions 
of years earlier. The original temperature of the Big Bang explosion was 

481 Marcus Chown, “Is the Earth at the Heart of a Giant Cosmic Void? New 
Scientist, Nov. 12, 2008, pp. 32-35. 

4X2 Ibid., p. 33. 

483 Amo A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson, Astrophysical Journal, 142: 419-427 
(1965). The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) is radiation in the 
form of microwaves (the same as are produced in a microwave oven) which has 
been found to pervade all of outer space. The wavelength of the microwaves is 7.3 
centimeters, and the temperature is just slightly above absolute zero, registering at 
2.728° Kelvin (approximately -212° Celsius or -458° Fahrenheit). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

believed to have been about 3000° Kelvin and this is said to have cooled 
down to the present 2.15° Kelvin of the CMB 13.7 billion years later as the 
universe expanded. 

Arno Penzias, b. 1933 Robert Wilson b.1936 

It was a happy ending to a nice story that started about 30 years earlier 
when Fr. Georges Lemaitre first introduced the Big Bang concept into 
modem science. 

Fr. Georges LemaTtre 

1894 -1966 

First, let’s take a closer look at the “discovery” of the CMB. Pensias 
and Wilson were not the first to discover the CMB. That honor should go 
to Grote Reber (d. 2002) whose discoveries in the early 1940s of the CMB 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

were widely published in many peer-reviewed journals. 484 Around the 
same time (1941), Canadian astronomer Andrew McKellar discovered 
interstellar gas radiating at 3° Kelvin. It appears that Penzias and Wilson 
received credit for the discovery probably because, after receiving advice 
from astronomer Robert Dicke, they inteipreted the CMB in line with the 
burgeoning field of Big Bang cosmology initiated in the 1930s that 
claimed the universe came into being by a primordial explosion 10-20 
billion years ago. In a way, it might be said that Penzias and Wilson’s 
aspirations went from the Big Doo-Doo to the Big Bang since, before they 
consulted with Dicke, they guessed that one possible cause for the 
“radiation” in their instruments was due to bird droppings. 485 

One of the main theses of the Big Bang theory is that the 2.728°K 
temperature is the result of radiation released in the reaction of electrons 
and protons that were in the process of forming hydrogen about one 
million years after the initial explosion. Since the temperature during this 
reactive state is said to have been 3,000 °K, the resulting 2.728°K is said to 
be the result of a hydrogen flash redshift factor of z = 1,000, although few 
have an explanation why there were no objects in the cosmos with z 
factors between 10 and 1000. In any case, some time later Sir Fred Hoyle 
dubbed the theory “The Big Bang” in order to register his skepticism 
regarding its scientific validity, although Hoyle tenaciously held to an 
equally weak view called “The Steady State” theory, which holds that the 
universe is infinite yet comes into being little by little. Under Dicke’s 
direction, Penzias and Wilson claimed the CMB was the remnant of the 
Big Bang, whereas Reber made it known he was vehemently against the 
Big Bang all the way to his death in 2002, and his work was consequently 
ignored. 486 

484 Some of Reber’s work in this area includes the following: “Cosmic Static at 
144 meters wavelength,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 285 (Jan. 1968), 
pp. 1-12; “Cosmic Static,” Proc. IRE, 28, 68 (1940); “Cosmic Static,” 
Astrophysical Journal, 91, (1940) p. 621; “Cosmic Static,” Proc. IRE , 30, 367 
(1942); “Cosmic Static,” Astrophysical Journal, 100, 279 (1944); “Cosmic Radio 
Noise,” Radio-Electronic Engineering, July 1948; “Cosmic Static,” Proc. IRE, 36, 
1215, (1948); “Cosmic radio-frequency radiation near one megacycle,” G. Reber 
and G. R. Ellis, Journal of Geophysical Research, 61,1 (1956). 

485 Karen Fox, The Big Bang Theory’ - What It Is, Where It Came from and Why It 
Works, 2000, p. 78. 

486 “Big bang creationism,” Physics Today, 35, p. 108, Nov. 1982; 1989: “Cosmic 
matter and the nonexpanding universe,” Paul Marmet, Grote Reber, IEEE Trans. 
Plasma Science, 17, no.2, 264 (1989); The Non-expanding universe: H. Reeves, 
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 83, 223 (1989). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Although Big Bang advocates claim that their theory predicted the 
existence of the CMB, their prediction was quite higher than the present 
2.728° Kelvin. 487 Few dispute the clear fact that the CMB exists, but what 
is highly disputed is precisely why it exists. C. E. Guillaume, proposing it 
to be 5° or 6° K, made estimates of the universe’s ambient temperature as 
early as 18 96. 488 In 1926 Sir Arthur Eddington posited that the space 
between the heated bodies of the universe would cool down to a 
temperature slightly above absolute zero, and his chosen figure was 
between 2.8° and 3.18° K. 489 Seven years later, Erhard Regener obtained 
the figure of 2.8° Kelvin, and stipulated that it was a homogeneous energy 
field. 490 Nemst posited 0.75° Kelvin in 1938; Herzberg 2.3° K in 1941; 
Finlay-Freundlich, using the theory of “tired light” said it should be 
between 1.9° to 6° K. All in all, there is little to persuade us that a Big 
Bang produces the CMB as opposed to merely the natural minimum of 
heat expected in a universe at equilibrium. As Andre Assis puts it: 

Usually it is claimed that the CBR is a proof of the big bang and 
of the expansion of the universe as it had been predicted by 
Gamow and collaborators....However, we performed a 
bibliographic search and found something quite different from 
this view....we have found several predictions or estimations of 
this temperature based on a stationary universe without 
expansion, always varying between 2 K and 6 K. Moreover, one 
of these estimates [C. E. Guillaume] was performed in 1896, 
prior to Gamow’s birth in 1904!....The conclusion is that the 
discovery of the CBR by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 is a 
decisive factor in favor of a universe in dynamical equilibrium 
without expansion, and against the big bang. 491 

487 George Gamow is said to have predicted anywhere from 5° to 50° K in the late 
1950s. The Creation of the Universe, New York: Viking Press, 1961. Van 
Flandern disputes this figure stating: “The Big Bang made no quantitative 
prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees 
Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction was 30 degrees Kelvin; whereas Eddington 
had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of 
starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin. And no element abundance 
prediction of the Big Bang was successful without some ad hoc parameterization 
to ‘adjust’ predictions that otherwise would have been judged as failures” ( Dark 
Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, 1993, pp. 399-400). 

488 C. E. Guillaume, La Nature 24, 2, 234, 1896. 

489 Arthur S. Eddington, The Internal Combustion of the Stars, 1926. 

490 E. Regener, Zeitschriftfur Physik, 106:633-661, 1933. 

491 Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 189-190. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

So not only can the CMB be shown to be unsupportive of the Big 
Bang theory, we see that the low Kelvin temperature is consistent with 
non-expanding models of the universe, e.g., geocentric models of the 

Isotropy versus Anisotropy 

A few decades later it began to sink into the minds of certain 
scientists that all was not well with the “residual energy” CMB 
interpretation. Joseph Silk of the University of California (Berkeley) put it 
this way: 

Studies of the cosmic background radiation have confirmed the 
isotropy of the radiation, or its complete uniformity in all 
directions. If the universe possesses a center, we must be very 
close to it...otherwise, excessive observable anisotropy in the 
radiation intensity would be produced, and we would detect 
more radiation from one direction than from the opposite 

i • • 492 


In other words, the isotropy of the CMB can only be true from an 
Earth-centered location. If observed anywhere else in the universe the 

CMB will appear heavily anisotropic. 
Hence, because of the CMB’s 
geocentric fingerprints, there have been 
various attempts to dismiss its isotropy. 
This is accomplished by presuming, in 
addition to its isotropy, the universe is 
also homogeneous, since all Big Bang 
and Steady-State cosmologies require 
both isotropy and homogeneity. For 
example, we noted earlier that Stephen 
Hawking readily admitted his reluctance to entertain a non-homogeneous 
universe for fear of its “Earth-centered” implications. His co-author in the 
1973 book The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime , George F. R. Ellis, 
admits the same: 

Models of the sort described here have not been considered 
previously because of the assumption - made at the very 
beginning in setting up the standard models - of a principle of 

492 Joseph Silk, The Big Bang: The Creation and Evolution of the Universe, 1980, 
p. 53. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

uniformity [homogeneity]... This is assumed for a priori reasons 
and not tested by observations. However, it is precisely this 
principle that we wish to call into question. The static 
inhomogeneous model discussed in this paper shows that the 
usual unambiguous deduction that the universe is expanding is a 
consequence of an unverified assumption, namely, the 
uniformity [homogeneity] assumption. This assumption is made 
because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near 
the center of the Universe. 494 

As we noted previously, Ellis had once shaken the halls of modem 
science with what other scientists said was “an earthquake that made 
Copernicus turn in his grave.” In a lengthy article in New Scientist in 1978, 
Ellis’ own General Relativity theory forced him to conclude that our 
galaxy is located near one of “two centers” in the universe that are in an 
antipodal relation. 494 Although Ellis allows that his observations and 
calculations may be the result of a wrong interpretation, no one has since 
discovered any such errors, including Ellis. In fact, the then editor of 
Nature, Paul C. W. Davies, admitted that Ellis’ theory did not contain any 
logical errors and that in every aspect seems to be in agreement with 
observed facts. Under the article title “Cosmic Heresy,” he writes: 

Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound 
consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modem science, 
to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a 
modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the- 
mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this 
miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny 
without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big- 
Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are 
buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see 
redshifts wherever they look. 

493 George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?” General Relativity and 
Gravitation, vol. 9, no. 2, 1978, p. 92, emphasis added. Ellis proceeds to argue: 
“.. .where would one be likely to find life like that we know on Earth? The answer 
must be, where conditions are favorable for life of this kind; but in the model we 
are considering, the conditions for life would be most favorable near the center, 
where the universe is cool.” See also: G. F. R. Ellis, R. Maartens and S. Nel, “Is 
the Universe Expanding - But Maybe We’re Near Its Center?” Monthly Notices of 
the Royal Astronomical Society, 154:187-195, 1978. 

494 New Scientist, May 25, 1978, p. 507. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us 
under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise 
from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the 
center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of 
stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The 
argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more 
complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a 
favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite 
consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it 
clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on 


our own. 

Davies ends his evaluation with the leading question: “Is the 
Copernican revolution maybe out of date?” A reporter registered the same 
sentiments for the Vancouver Sun: 

Copernicus must be orbiting in his grave. Five hundred years 
after he laid to rest the idea that Man is the center of the 
universe, another cosmologist is seriously suggesting that the 
center of the universe is exactly where we are....No heresy now, 
the Copernican view is dogma. And it is a dogma that University 
of Capetown mathematician George Ellis is questioning.... The 
idea is a modem heresy. It violates a principle of Cosmic 
Democracy that says that our comer of the universe is no 
different from any other....Ellis proposes that it is all an 
illusion. 496 

The geocentric implications of the cosmological evidence are not 
merely a blip on the radar screen. Whole symposiums have been dedicated 
to answering the mounting evidence. In September 1973, Cracow, Poland, 
hosted “Copernicus Symposium II,” sponsored by the International 
Astronomical Union. One of the addresses at the symposium was titled: 
“Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data” 
denoting, of course, that current findings in cosmology are showing 
mounting evidence of a non-Copemican universe. 497 

495 Paul C. W. Davies, “Cosmic Heresy?” Nature, 273:336, 1978, emphasis added. 

496 Reporter Tim Padmore, “A Great Theory Once - Now It’s Been Recycled,” 
Vancouver Sun, Vancouver, Canada, October 2, 1973. 

497 M. S. Longair, editor, Dordrecht, Holland and Boston, D. Reidel Publishing 
Co., 1974. See especially Brandon Carter’s, “Large Number Coincidences and the 
Anthropic Principle,” pp. 291-298, in Longair’s work. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Similarly, in a paper titled: “Geocentrism Re-Examined,” the authors 

Observations show that the universe is nearly isotropic on very 
large scales. It is much more difficult to show that the universe is 
radially homogeneous.... This is usually taken as an axiom, 
since otherwise we would occupy a special position. 498 

By “special position,” of course, he means Earth in the center of the 
universe. In order to avoid putting Earth at these privileged coordinates, 
the author tells us that modem cosmologists have presumed the universe is 
“homogeneous” but no one has proven it to be so, and the author will thus 
“...consider several empirical arguments for radial homogeneity, all of 
them based on the cosmic microwave background (CMB).” His conclusion 
for homogeneity is less than stellar as he admits, after 10 pages of 
calculus, that “...the bookkeeping is not yet accurate enough to yield a 
10% limit on the radial homogeneity of the CMB temperature.” 499 

Those who have not yet been enlightened to the idea that Earth could 
be in the center have at least understood that the evenly spread and 
universally pervasive CMB could even serve as an absolute frame of 
reference. As V. J. Weisskopf states: 

It is remarkable that we now are justified in talking about an 
absolute motion, and that we can measure it. The great dream of 
Michelson and Morley is realized.. ..It makes sense to say that an 
observer is at rest in an absolute sense when the 3K radiation 
appears to have the same frequencies in all directions. Nature has 
provided an absolute frame of reference. The deeper significance 
of this concept is not yet clear. 500 

Going even deeper, Weisskopf ties the CMB evidence to the opening 
chapter of Genesis: 

Indeed, the Judeo-Christian tradition describes the beginning of 
the world in a way that is surprisingly similar to the scientific 
model. Previously, it seemed scientifically unsound to have light 

498 Jeremy Goodman, “Geocentrism Re-examined,” Princeton University 
Observatory, Peyton Hall, Princeton, NJ, June 9, 1995, p. 1. 
m Ibid., p. 11. 

500 V. J. Weisskopf, American Scientist, 71, 5, 473 (1983). See also George Smoot 
and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p. 117; George Smoot, et al., 
Physical Review Letters 39: 898. 1979; Astrophysical Journal, 234: L83. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

created before the sun. The present scientific view does indeed 
assume the early universe to be filled with various kinds of 
radiation long before the sun was created. The Bible says about 
the beginning: “And God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was 
light. And God saw the light, that it was good.” 501 

Amo Penzias voiced a similar opinion to Weisskopf s, stating: 

The thing I’m most interested in now is whether the universe is 
open or closed. If it is open, and the data seems to indicate that it 
is open, this is precisely the universe that organized religion 
predicts, to put it in crude terms. A closed universe, one that 
explodes, expands, falls back on itself and explodes again, 
repeating the process over and over eternally, that would be a 
pointless universe.... A theologian friend of mine who is a priest 
told me once he could not conceive of Calvary happening twice. 

He said his faith as a Christian would be shaken if it could be 
proven to him that the universe, with its finite number of 
particles, could be reconstituted an infinite number of times....In 
other words, a closed universe would be pointless as the throw of 
dice. But it seems to me that the data we have in hand right now 
clearly show that there is not nearly enough matter in the 
universe, not enough by a factor of three, for the universe to be 
able to fall back on itself ever again. My argument is that the 
best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I 
nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the 
Bible as a whole. 501 

Another example is Bernard Haisch, editor of the prestigious 
Astrophysical Journal, who holds that the Casimir Effect reveals the 
existence of a “zero-point field,” that is, that space is not a vacuum but is 
filled with infinitesimally small particles (which we will examine in depth 
later), which he envisions as the scientific fulfillment of Genesis 1:3’s “Let 
there be light,” constituting “the background sea of light whose total 
energy is enormous.” 503 

" V. J. Weisskopf, American Scientist, 71, 5, 473 (1983). 

5<L Interview by Malcolm W. Browne appearing in The New York Times, March 
12, 1978, emphasis added. Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for their 
discovery of the CMB in 1978. 

503 Haisch’s proposal of the zero-point field in the Casimir Effect was considered 
worthy enough to be published by Physical Review (B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

On the one hand, it is admirable to see these famous scientists attempt 
to relate their cosmological discoveries to the opening chapters of Genesis. 
On the other hand, such efforts demonstrate science’s biased 
presuppositions both in cosmology and in exegeting Genesis. What is 
either casually overlooked or purposely ignored in these overtures toward 
Genesis is that Moses’ first words did not posit a great light exploding into 
existence; rather, he is very explicit about Earth’s 
primal existence. Moses’ description of the Earth as 
being a formless and unadorned mass shrouded in 
darkness with its surface covered by water is stated 
in Genesis 1:1-2 for the express purpose of 
indicating that the Earth existed before the light 
came into being. The light had a function, which 
was to dispel the darkness from the Earth, a simple 
cause-and-effect relationship. If Weisskopf, 
Penzias, Haisch or any other scientist wishes to 
crown his theory with divine favor, then he must 
adhere to the precise words that “the five books of 
Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole” have given to us rather than foist 
their biased eisegesis on the biblical text. As it stands, Genesis 1, literally 
interpreted, is diametrically opposed to the Big Bang theory, since the 
latter holds that the Earth did not come into existence until some 8 billion 
years after the “light.” Moreover, “.. .the Psalms and the Bible as a whole” 
do not speak of the CMB as the absolute reference point, since Scripture 
already granted that privileged position to the Earth (c/ ICh 16:30; Ps 
96:10; Ec 1:5); and it was the firmament that was then expanded and made 
to rotate with the heavenly bodies around the Earth. Of course, if the above 

H.E. Puthoff, Physical Review A, 49, 678, 1994). In an article in Science and 
Spirit Magazine titled “Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field,” 
Haisch holds that the zero-point energy field results when, due to the Heisenberg 
Uncertainty Principle (which says that there will be continual random movement 
in electromagnetic waves), all the energy in the random movements are added up 
producing the “background sea of light whose total energy is enormous: the zero- 
point field. The ‘zero-point’ refers to the fact that even though this energy is huge, 
it is the lowest possible energy state.” Other articles include: “BEYOND E=mc 2 : 
A First Glimpse of a Post-modern Physics in Which Mass, Inertia and Gravity 
Arise from Underlying Electromagnetic Processes,” B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. 
Puthoff, The Sciences, November/December, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 26-31, 1994. B 
Haisch and A. Rueda, “Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field as Active Energy Source 
in the Intergalactic Medium,” presented at 35 th Jet Propulsion Conference, June 
1999. “Vacuum Zero-Point Field Pressure Instability in Astrophysical Plasmas 
and the Formation of Cosmic Voids,” A. Rueda, B. Haisch and D. C. Cole, 
Astrophysical Journal, 445, 7, 1995. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

named scientists, because of this disagreement with Scripture, were to 
disown Moses as their ultimate guide and instead insist on the CMB as the 
absolute frame of reference, this should serve as the death-knell for 
Relativity theory (which claims there is nothing even resembling an 
absolute reference frame in space), but that implication was quietly 
suppressed with Penzias’ discovery in 1965 and was, shall we say, hushed 
up in polite society. 

Back we go to the “Copemican Dilemma.” The foregoing scientists 
are not the only ones to conclude that the evidence shows Earth as the 
center of the universe. In 1995, G. J. Fishman and C. A. Meegan, after 
analyzing a number of gamma-ray bursts, came to the only logical 
conclusion: “The isotropy and inhomogeneity of the bursts show only that 
we are at the center of the apparent burst distribution.” 504 During the same 
time, S. E. Woolsey’s review of gamma radiation stated the logical 
conclusion even more directly: “The observational data show conclusively 
that the Earth is situated at or very near the center of the gamma-ray burst 



CMB Anisotropy and Eartk-Centeredness 

Modern science was about to be stuck between the proverbial rock and 
a hard place. While the CMB’s isotropy put the Earth in the center of the 
universe, one might conjecture that any discovery of anisotropy in the 
CMB would do just the opposite. As it turned out, this was not to be the 
case. In order to take the Earth out of the center, the anisotropy would have 
to be pervasive and random. What was discovered, however, was that the 
CMB, although mostly isotropic, was anisotropic in very specific and, we 
might say, in very calculated “geocentric” places. 

In the same year that Penzias and Wilson received their Nobel Prize 
for discovering the CMB (1978) and putting the presumed capstone on the 
Big Bang universe, scientific papers were submitted showing that the 
CMB contained significant anisotropies. 506 If true, this was a big blow to 

504 Ann. Rev. of Astronomy and Astrophysics 33, 415, 1995. 

505 “Gamma-Ray Bursts: What Are They?” in Seventeenth Texas Symposium on 
Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology’, 1995, p. 446. 

506 Richard A. Muller, UC Berkeley, “The cosmic background radiation and the 
new aether drift,” Scientific American, vol. 238, May 1978, pp. 64-74, the abstract 
stating: “U-2 observations have revealed anisotropy in the 3 K blackbody 
radiation which bathes the universe. The radiation is a few millidegrees hotter in 
the direction of Leo, and cooler in the direction of Aquarius. The spread around 
the mean describes a cosine curve. Such observations have far reaching 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

the Big Bang theory. In 1925, Alexander Friedmann had already adjusted 
Einstein’s field equations (popularly known as the FLRW equations) and 
he provided a perfectly isotropic and homogeneous universe that would 
expand indefinitely without distinction and thereby bolster the Big Bang 
and negate a special location for the Earth. 

About ten years later, in 1989, NASA launched the Cosmic 
Background Explorer (COBE), also referred to as Explorer 66, to 
investigate the CMB more closely. 

Cosmic Background Explorer 

According to Wikipedia, “This work provided evidence that supported 
the Big Bang theory of the universe: that the CMB was a near-perfect 
black-body spectrum and that it had very faint anisotropies” and it was 
considered “the starting point for cosmology as a precision science.” 507 
The COBE project was prompted by the discovery in 1981 by David 
Wilkinson of Princeton and Francesco Melchiorri of the University of 
Florence who, using balloon-borne instruments, detected a quadrupole 
distribution of the CMB. This meant that the CMB had four pockets of 
temperature that deviated from the established figure of 2.725°K. Most 
astounding was that these four pockets were situated in the universe such 
that they straddled the ecliptic plane of the Sun and Earth (although this 
fact is left out of the Wikipedia article). The alignment of the ecliptic with 
the CMB can be seen in the official sky map below. The thick red line in 
the middle is the Milky Way, but the dark blue and light red portions 
above and below the middle make up the CMB quadrupole that aligns with 
the Sun-Earth ecliptic. 

The shocking fact about the CMB is that it is aligned with our solar 
system, but our solar system is inside a 93 billion light-years universe, thus 

implications for both the history of the early universe and in predictions of its 
future development.” 



Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

our solar system is only 10' 17 % of the size of the universe. EIow could such 
a tiny region be the hub for the rest of the universe? It is comparable to a 
pea being the hub of the Milky Way. Rather than probe this astounding 
mystery, attempts were made to make COBE fit the Big Bang theory 
which, although it formerly predicted a smooth and random distribution of 
the CMB (isotropy) was now saying that the CMB’s temperature 
fluctuations (anisotropy) was “intrinsic” and allowed the Big Bang to have 
a vehicle for galaxy formation, yet with no explanation from particle 
physics how such a mechanism originates within the parameters of Big 
Bang theory. Instead, it is preempted by the conclusion that “Data from 
COBE showed a perfect fit between the black body curve predicted by big 
bang theory and that observed in the microwave background.” 508 

COBE's 1990 Mapping of the CMB (red band is the Milky Way) 



Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Other attempts at redefining the anisotropy of the CMB come from 
the highest echelons of modem cosmology. For example, Brian Greene 
relates the anisotropy of the CMB to the as yet unfound Dark Energy, and 
concludes that both work together to form galaxies and planets: 

In universes with larger amounts of dark energy, whenever 
matter tries to clump into galaxies, the repulsive push of the dark 
energy is so strong that the clump gets blown apart, thwarting 
galactic formation. In universes whose dark-energy value is 
much smaller, the repulsive push changes to an attractive pull, 
causing those universes to collapse back on themselves so 
quickly that again galaxies wouldn’t form. And without galaxies, 
there are no stars, no planets, and so in those universes there’s no 
chance for our form of life to exist. 509 

COBE's results on the sphere of the universe 

Stephen Hawking is a little more specific: 

509 Brian Greene, “Welcome to the Multiverse,” The Daily Beast, May 21, 2012, /newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to- 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

But according to the theory, the expansion caused by inflation 
would not be completely uniform, as predicted by the traditional 
big bang picture. These irregularities would produce minuscule 
variations in the temperature of the CMBR in different 
directions. The variations are too small to have been observed in 
the 1960s, but they were first discovered in 1992 by NASA’s 
COBE satellite, and later measured by its successor, the WMAP 
satellite, launched in 2001. 510 




< * „ 



* • • *07 


• • 


|| • 


Comparison of the 1989 COBE Results with 2001 WMAP Results 11 

Elawking ignores the astounding fact that the anisotropy of the CMB 
is aligned with our solar system, and instead turns the anisotropy into a 
cause for the galaxies and planets to form from the Big Bang. This shows 

510 The Grand Design, 2010, pp. 129-130. 

511 Graph taken from Kate Land’s seminar at: 
/TALKS/Land-Nov23 .pdf 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

once again that modem science will avoid interpretations of the data that 
go against the Copernican Principle and instead put forth ad hoc 
interpretations to preserve their paradigms. 

The fact remains, however, that the Big Bang theory predicted 
isotropy, not anisotropy. In fact, in 1973 Misner, Thorne and Wheeler had 
previously attributed the aforementioned blackbody curve to the isotropy 
of the CMB. They write: 

The expansion of the universe has redshifted the temperature of 
the freely propagating photons in accordance with the equation T 
% 1 la. As a consequence, today they have a black-body 
spectrum with a temperature of 2.7 K....Because it is initially in 
thermal equilibrium with matter, this primordial radiation 
initially has a Planck black-body spectrum.. .that radiation with a 
Planck spectrum as viewed by one observer has a Planck 
spectrum as viewed by all observers... 512 

Others also noted the difficulty of fitting the COBE results with Big 
Bang theory. Jeremy Goodman of Princeton, presuming like Misner, et al 
that “the isotropy of the universe on large scales is well established...” 

Results from the Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite (COBE) 
show that the temperature of the microwave background (CMB) 
deviates slightly from isotropy, but only at the level (AT/T) rms ~ 

1.1 x 10' 5 on angular scales > 10°, apart from a dipole pattern 
that is conventionally attributed to the peculiar velocity of the 
Sun and the Galaxy....There may exist ‘standard candles’ at z/1, 
such as Type I supernovae. Among homogeneous Friedmann 
models, unfortunately, the shape of the magnitude-redshift 
relation for standard candles already depends on two parameters: 
the density parameter, Q, and the cosmological constant, A. Only 
superb data will permit one to fit for a third parameter and 
thereby constrain the homogeneity of the universe on the scale of 
the present horizon. 513 

512 Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thome and John A. Wheeler, Gravitation, 1973, pp. 
766, 779, in general pages 764-797. 

513 Jeremy Goodman, “Geocentrism Re-examined,” Princeton University 
Observatory, Princeton, NJ, June 9, 1995, p. 2. Others have interpreted the 
anisotropy of the CMB as indicating it is Euclidean (i.e. has dimensions), thus 
allowing a center Paolo de Bernardis, et al., “A flat universe from high-resolution 
maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation,” Nature 404, 955-959, 
2000; and V. G. Gurzadyan and S. Torres, “Testing the effect of geodesic mixing 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

2001 Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Prohe (WMAP) 

Although the science community tried to put 
a lot of cosmetic makeup over the anisotropies of 
the CMB to make them presentable to the 
Copemican Big Bang audience, 514 the gnawing 
feeling persisted that all was not well. Trying to 
avoid the alignment of the universe with the tiny 
ecliptic of the Sun-Earth was like trying to avoid 
the rain without an umbrella. Plans were then 
made in the late 1990s to test whether the 
anisotropies of COBE were, indeed, the reality. 

The new project was named after the original 
discoverer of the CMB anisotropies in 1981, 

David T. Wilkinson. The name Wilkinson 

1935 - 2002 

David Wilkinson 

with COBE data to reveal the curvature of the universe,” Astronomy and 
Astrophysics. 321:19-23, 1997, which abstract reads: “If the detected eccentricity 
of anisotropy spots can be attributed to the effect of mixing it implies the negative 
curvature of the Universe and a value of Q < 1.” 

14 Which is still the case since the WMAP 7-year results, which were released in 
2011 says that “WMAP now places 50% tighter limits on the standard model of 
cosmology (Cold Dark Matter and a Cosmological Constant in a flat universe), 
and there is no compelling sign of deviations from this model” 
( but the reality is that “Cold Dark Matter” has not 
been found, and the Cosmological Constant is merely a fudge factor to make the 
Big Bang expansion work as desired. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Microwave Anisotropy Probe showed that the main quest was to search 
out the extent and meaning of these bothersome and unpredicted 
temperature fluctuations of the universe’s design. The results were nothing 
less than astounding. WMAP produced even clearer confirmation that the 
universe was aligned with the Earth as its hub. 

Max Tegmark, b. 1967 

Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was the 
first to see these results. As he relates the story of his discovery, it was late 
in the evening and he was about ready to retire for the night but decided to 
press the final button that gave the clearest image of the WMAP results. 
The first words out of his mouth were “wow!” followed by a long pause of 
amazement. 515 His findings were reported by the BBC: 

“We found something very bizarre; there is some extra, so far 
unexplained structure in the CMB. We had expected that the 
microwave background would be truly isotropic, with no 
preferred direction in space but that may not be the case.” [BBC: 
Looking at the symmetry of the CMB - measures technically 
called its octopole and quadrupole components - the researchers 
uncovered a curious pattern. They had expected to see no pattern 
at all but what they saw was anything but random]. “The 
octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a straight 
line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator. That's weird. 

515 This is Tegmark’s recounting of his experience during his interview with 
Stellar Motion Pictures’ producer Richard Delano in August 2011 for the 
scientific documentary. The Principle. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

We don't think this is due to foreground contamination,” Dr 
Tegmark said. “It could be telling us something about the shape 
of space on the largest scales. We did not expect this and we 
cannot yet explain it.” 516 

The WMAP image showed the exact same results as the COBE image, 
only with more clarity. The Sun-Earth ecliptic plane (the black line) was 
precisely in the center, between the red poles (hotter regions) and the blue 
poles (colder regions) - a difference of 50mK or 50 millionths of a degree 
Kelvin from the 2.725°Kelvin of the remaining CMB. In Tegmark’s 
words: “Intriguingly, both the quadrupole and the octopole are seen to 
have power suppressed along a particular spatial axis, which lines up 
between the two, roughly towards (/, b ) ~ (-110°, 60°) in Virgo.” 517 Just 
like COBE, the WMAP showed that the 93 billion light year diameter 
universe was in direct alignment with the 93 million mile distance between 
the sun and the Earth - a ratio of 10' 17 to 1. 

Tegmark's Original WMAP Image 

In a 2004 publication, the team of Dominik Schwarz, Glenn Starkman, 
Dragan Huterer and Craig Copi admitted that the CMB poles were not 

516, March 3, 2003. 

517 Max Tegmark, Angelica de Oliveira-Costa and Andrew J. S. Hamilton, “A 
high resolution foreground cleaned CMB map from WMAP,” Dept, of Physics 
and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, July 26, 2003, abstract, arXiv:astro- 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

only aligned with the Sun-Earth ecliptic, but also hint that they are aligned 
with the Earth’s equinoxes: 

The CMB Dipole is aligned with the Earth's equinoxes 

The large-angle correlations of the cosmic microwave 
background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies 
compared to the standard inflationary cosmology...the 
quadrupole-octopole correlation is excluded from being a chance 
occurrence in a gaussian random statistically isotropic sky at 
>99.87%.... The correlation of the normals [perpendicular 
vectorsl with the ecliptic poles suggest an unknown source or 
si nk of CMB radiation or an unrecognized systematic. If it is a 
physical source or sink in the inner solar system it would cause 
an annual modulation in the time-ordered data....Physical 
correlation of the CMB with the equinoxes is difficult to 

imagine, since the WMAP satellite has no knowledge of the 

inclination of the Earth’s spin axis . 518 

518 Dominik J. Schwarz, Glenn D. Starkman, Dragan Huterer and Craig J. Copi, 
“Is the Low-t Microwave Background Cosmic?” Physical Review Letters, 
November 26, 2004, pp. 221301-1 to 4. The same phenomenon is reiterated in 
their 2005 paper, “On large scale anomalies of the microwave sky,” Monthly 
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society; and their 2010 paper, “Large-angle 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

In a 2010 paper, the team is even more astounded at the Earth- 
centered results of WMAP. In this study, galactocentrism (of the Milky 
Way) is eliminated in favor of an Earth-centered explanation: 

Particularly puzzling are the alignments with solar system 
features. CMB anisotropy should clearly not be correlated with 
our local habitat. While the observed correlations seem to hint 
that there is contamination by a foreground or perhaps by the 
scanning strategy of the telescope, closer inspection reveals that 
there is no obvious way to explain the observed correlations . 
Moreover, if their explanation is that they are a foreground, then 
that will likely exacerbate other anomalies that we will discuss in 
section IVB below. Our studies indicate that the observed 
alignments are with the ecliptic plane, with the equinox or with 
the CMB dipole, and not with the Galactic plane : the alignments 
of the quadrupole and octopole planes with the 
equinox/ecliptic/dipole directions are much more significant than 
those for the Galactic plane. Moreover, it is remarkably curious 
that it is precisely the ecliptic alignment that has been found on 
somewhat smaller scales using the power spectrum analyses of 
statistical isotropy. 519 

anomalies in the CMB,” and begin it with an obvious reaffirmation that all data 
will be interpreted through the grid of the “Copernican Principle.. .that the Earth 
does not occupy a special place in the universe...” (p. 1), but at the same time 
admit: “These apparent correlations with the solar system geometry are puzzling 
and currently unexplained.. .the quadrupole and octopole are orthogonal to the 
ecliptic at the 95.9% CL [confidence level]...a systematic that is indeed correlated 
with the ecliptic plane...the normals to these four planes are aligned with the 
direction of the cosmological dipole (and with the equinoxes) at a level 
inconsistent with Gaussian random, statistically isotropic skies at 99% CL” (p. 5). 
519 “Large-angle anomalies in the CMB,” Craig J. Copi, D. Huterer, D. Schwarz, 
and G. Starkman, Nov. 12, 2010, arXiv:1004.5602v2. A Wikipedia article tries to 
pin the anomalies on foreground contamination: “Later analyses have pointed out 
that these are the modes most susceptible to foreground contamination from 
synchrotron, dust, and free-free emission, and from experimental uncertainty in 
the monopole and dipole. A full Bayesian analysis of the WMAP power spectrum 
demonstrates that the quadrupole prediction of Lambda-CDM cosmology is 
consistent with the data at the 10% level and that the observed octupole is not 
remarkable. Carefully accounting for the procedure used to remove the 
foregrounds from the full sky map further reduces the significance of the 
alignment by ~5%” ( 
background_radiation). This still leaves the fact that the Big Bang model is only 
consistent with CMB anisotropy by, at most, 15%, which leaves 85% non- 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Finally, in a 2012 paper, there appears to be no deviation from their 
previous conclusions, although perhaps some hand-wringing. 

We will discover that if one uses the full-sky ILC map then one 
finds very odd correlations in the map, that correlate 
unexpectedly to the Solar System....Looking into this anomaly 
more deeply we will find that it remains robust through all seven 
years of published WMAP data... 

.. .quadrupole planes and the three octopole planes, implying that 
not only are these four planes aligned but they are nearly 
perpendicular to the ecliptic. Furthermore the normals 
[perpendicular vectors] are near the dipole, meaning that the 
planes are not just aligned and perpendicular to the ecliptic but 
oriented perpendicular to the Solar System’s motion through the 
Universe....Flowever one does the statistical analysis, these 
apparent correlations with the Solar System geometry are 
puzzling. They do not seem to reflect the Galactic contamination 
that we might have expected from residual foreground 
contamination in the ILC map....For one, the observed 
quadrupole and octopole are aligned.. ..This makes it difficult to 
explain them in terms of some localized effect on the sky....The 
best one can say is that these full-sky solar-system correlations 
remain unexplained. 

The CMB anisotropies are analogous to the warm and cool spots in 
the Earth’s ocean being aligned with the Earth’s equator and its 23.5 

consistent. This is nothing to brag about, especially since it would require the Big 
Bang model to be based on nothing more than foreground contaminated evidence. 
Moreover, the Wikipedia sources for foreground contamination (footnotes 71-75) 
are old, ranging from 2004 to 2006. Since then, foreground contamination has 
been ruled out, as noted in Copi’s et al., 2010 paper. As for percentages, Copi 
shows they are worse than 85% for the Big Bang: “The study of alignments in the 
low-£ CMB has found a number of peculiarities. We have shown that the 
alignment of the quadrupole and octopole planes is inconsistent with Gaussian, 
statistically isotropic skies at least at the 99% confidence level. Further a number 
of (possibly related) alignments occur at 95% confidence levels or greater” (ibid., 
p. 6). Hence, Copi’s 2010 paper answers the 2005 paper by Chris Vale titled, 
“Local Pancake Defeats Axis of Evil,” who claims the Axis is the result of “weak 
lensing of the CMB dipole by large magnitude.” See also “Significant Foreground 
Unrelated Non-Acoustic Anisotropy on the 1 Degree Scale in WMAP Probe 5- 
Year Observations,” Bi-Zhu Jiang, et al., Jan. 2010. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

ecliptic angle, except in this case we are speaking of the whole universe, 
an astounding phenomenon, predicted by no model, except the Tychonic. 

The same team emphasizes several times in their paper that the CMB 
anisotropy does not match that which is predicted or accepted in the Big 
Bang model. 

...and furthermore that it is very difficult to explain within the 
context of the canonical Inflationary Lambda Cold Dark Matter 
of cosmology [ i.e ., the Big Bang]....Our first observation is that 
none of those data curves look like the [LCDM] theory 
curve....It is extremely difficult to arrange for the Q to have 
particular relative values in the context of the standard 
inflationary model...the observed sky, at least the part outside 
the Galaxy cut, seems not to respect the fundamental prediction 
of the standard cosmological model that the a £m are independent 
random variables...for the lowest multipoles and the largest 
angular skies, the observations disagree markedly with the 
predictions of the [Big Bang] theory. 520 

The harmonic multipoles of the CMB are analogous to the harmonics 
of musical vibrations. When a string on a violin is plucked it vibrates very 
fast. In turn, the air molecules vibrate and sound waves travel to our ear. 
But the note made by the violin makes the string vibrate in a very complex 
manner. First, is the basic or fundamental note, but many other notes 
appear that, when all the notes are combined, makes the sound that is 
unique to a violin as opposed to a cello. For example, the note A above 
middle C vibrates at 440 hertz or 440 times per second, which is the 
“fundamental” or “first harmonic.” The second harmonic vibrates twice as 
fast at 880 hertz or a 2:1 ratio, which is the A an octave higher. The third 
harmonic vibrates at 1320 hertz or with a ratio of 3:2, which will be the E 
an octave and a fifth above the fundamental note. So on and so on the 
harmonics are created. The higher the harmonic the quieter the note, but 
the ratio to create a harmonic is always a whole number. 

In a similar way, the CMB monopole is the fundamental note, but can 
then be divided into higher harmonics, such as dipole, quadrupole and 
octupole. Whereas the various harmonics of musical notes will create a 
different tone, the CMB harmonics will create different orientations or 

520 “The Oddly Quiet Universe: How the CMB Challenges Cosmology’s Standard 
Model,” Glenn D. Starkman, Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz, 
January 12, 2012, acXiv: 1201.2459vl. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

directions for the microwaves. The astounding fact for the CMB 
harmonics is that all of them point to ecliptic and equator of the Earth. 

Harmonics of musical notes analogous to CMB harmonics 

CMB: £ = 1 (dipole) 

CMB: £ = 2 (quadrupole); m = 2 (shape); ratio = 0.957 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 


CMB: € = 3 (octopole); m = 3 (shape); ratio = 0.942 

CMB: € = 4; m = 2; ratio = 0.875 

CMB: € = 5; m = 3; ratio = 0.895 

521 Graphs taken from Kate Land’s seminar at: http://www.cita. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

All in all, the cosmological statistics show that an alignment of the 
CMB quadrupole and octupole with the Earth is a 0.1% chance. That the 
normals [perpendicular vectors] are aligned with the Earth’s equinoxes and 
dipole is a 0.4% chance. That three of the normals are orthogonal 
[perpendicular] to the Earth’s ecliptic is a 0.9% chance. In light of the fact 
that these universal alignments could not have happened by chance, in an 
article for Scientific American, Schwarz and Starkman also admit that the 
CMB data does not fit with the Big Bang since, as we noted earlier, Big 
Bang cosmology did not predict the CMB large scale anisotropies. 
Comparing the CMB temperature differences to the sounds of an 
orchestra, they find that “Certain of those harmonics are playing more 
quietly than they should be....These bum notes mean that the otherwise 
very successful standard model of cosmology [the Big Bang] is flawed - 
or that something is amiss with the data.” 522 Toward the end of the article 
Schwarz and Starkman more or less discount that something is wrong with 
the data, leaving the Big Bang theory itself as the culprit: 

Yet the WMAP team has been exceedingly careful and has done 
numerous cross-checks of its instruments and its analysis 
procedure. It is difficult to see how spurious correlations could 
accidentally be introduced. Moreover, we have found similar 
correlations in the map produced by the COBE satellite....The 
results could send us back to the drawing board about the early 



Schwarz and Starkman refer to the study of Tegmark and Oliveira- 
Costa we covered above, noting that the “preferred axes of the quadrupole 
modes...and the octopole modes...were remarkably closely aligned” (i.e., 
geocentric), and they add the study of Hans Kristian Eriksen in 2003 at the 
University of Oslo, citing that: 

What they found contradicted the standard inflationary 
cosmology - the hemispheres often had very different amounts 
of power. But what was most surprising was that the pair of 
hemispheres that were the most different were the ones lying 
above and below the ecliptic, the plane of the earth’s orbit 
around the sun . This result was the first sign that the CMB 
fluctuations, which were supposed to be cosmological in 

522 Glenn Starkman and Dominik Schwarz, “Is the Universe Out of Tune,” 
Scientific American, August 2005, p. 50. 

523 Ibid., p. 55. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

origin...have a solar system signal in them - that is, a type of 
observational artifact. 524 


Eriksen & al. ApJ(605)14 

(/,b)=(57,10) maximises asymm 

The significance of Eriksen’s finding may go over the heads of most 
people not familiar with astrophysical language, but the simple 
interpretation is that all the radiation in the universe, whether it is 
symmetric or asymmetric, is centered around the Earth. This is confirmed 
when Schwarz, et al., state later: “Within that plane, they sit unexpectedly 
close to the equinoxes - the two points on the sky where the projection of 
the earth’s equator onto the sky crosses the ecliptic.” In other words, all 
the data show that, as far out as our telescopes can see, space is oriented 
geocentrically. What are the chances that this could happen by accident? 
The team of Copernicans had to admit that the “combined chance 
probability is certainly less than one in 10,000.” So upsetting is this 
evidence to the scientific status quo that another magazine, New Scientist, 
labeled the same universal orientation around Earth’s equatorial plane as, 
“THE AXIS OF EVIL,” since this geocentric picture virtually destroys its 
cherished Copemican principle. 526 This phrase was taken by a paper 
written by Kate Land and Joao Magueijo in a 2005 paper appropriately 
titled, “The Axis of Evil.” 

524 Ibid., p. 52. 

525 Graph taken from Kate Land’s seminar at: http://www.cita.utoronto 
.ca/TALKS/Land-Nov23 .pdf 

526 “Axis of Evil Warps Cosmic Background,” Marcus Chown, New Scientist, 
October 22, 2005, pp. 19ff, emphasis in original. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 


Land & Magueijo PRL(95)071301 

• SHAPES ttlj 

Not just favouring one shape. Not always planar. 

• RATIOS r, 

Not significant - some ‘m preference’ is normal. 


Highly correlated for / = 2,3,4,5 

All find direction (/,b)~(-110,60) 

Rejected by 99.9% 

52 " 

Almost as if they know that Copemicanism is about to be overturned 
by the CMB evidence, they begin the paper assuring their audience that 
“The homogeneity and isotropy of the Universe - also known as the 
Copernican principle - is a major postulate of modem cosmology....One 
may expect that the ever improving observations of CMB fluctuations 
should lead to the greatest vindication of this principle.” But in the same 
breath they admit “there have been a number of disturbing claims of 
evidence for a preferred direction in the Universe” (i.e., geocentric) and 
that “These claims have potentially very damaging implications for the 
standard model of cosmology” (i.e., the Big Bang). They add that they 
hope “the observed ‘axis of evil’ could be the result of galactic foreground 
contamination” but in the end admit they were “unable to blame these 
effects on foreground contamination or large-scale systematic errors” and 
are desperately hoping to find an answer to this “anomaly” in order to save 
the Copernican principle. 528 

527 Graph taken from Kate Land’s seminar at: http://www.cita.utoronto 
.ca/TALKS/Land-Nov23 .pdf 

528 Kate Land and Joao Magueijo, “The axis of evil,” Theoretical Physics Group, 
Imperial College, London, Feb. 11, 2005, p. 1. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Kate Land and Joao Magueijo 529 

In a New Scientist article of July 2005 with what many would 
consider a career-ending title, “Did the big bang really happen?” Marcus 
Chown covered Land and Magueijo’s “Axis of Evil” paper in great detail. 
The implications are staggering for modem cosmology. Chown writes: 

Yet there is more evidence that there could be something wrong 
with the standard model of cosmology. And it is evidence that 
many cosmologists are finding harder to dismiss because it 
comes from the jewel in the crown of cosmology instruments, 
the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. “It could be telling 
us something fundamental about our universe, maybe even that 
the simplest big bang model is wrong,” says Joao Magueijo of 
Imperial College London. Since its launch in 2001, WMAP has 
been quietly taking the temperature of the universe from its 
vantage point 1.5 million kilometres out in space. The probe 
measures the way the temperature of the cosmic microwave 
background varies across the sky. 

...because the cosmic background radiation is a feature of the 
universe as a whole rather than any single object in it, none of 
the hot or cold regions should be aligned with structures in our 
comer of the cosmos. Yet this is exactly what some researchers 
are claiming from the WMAP results. 

Earlier this year, Magueijo and his Imperial College colleague 
Kate Land reported that they had found a bizarre alignment in 

529 Land’s doctoral thesis: “Exploring anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave 
Background,” 2006, won the RAS Michael Penston Astronomy thesis prize. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

the cosmic microwave background. At first glance, the pattern of 
hot and cold spots appeared random, as expected. But when they 
looked more closely, they found something unexpected. It is as if 
you were listening to an anarchic orchestra playing some random 
cacophony, and yet when you picked out the violins, trombones 
and clarinets separately, you discovered that they are playing the 
same tune. 

Like an orchestral movement, the WMAP results can be 
analysed as a blend of patterns of different spatial frequencies. 
When Magueijo and Land looked at the hot and cold spots this 
way, they noticed a striking similarity between the individual 
patterns. Rather than being spattered randomly across the sky, 
the spots in each pattern seemed to line up along the same 
direction. With a good eye for a newspaper headline, Magueijo 
dubbed this alignment the axis of evil. “If it is true, this is an 
astonishing discovery,” he says. 

That’s because the result flies in the face of big bang theory, 
which rules out any such special or preferred direction. So could 
the weird effect be down to something more mundane, such as a 
problem with the WMAP satellite? Charles Bennett, who leads 
the WMAP mission at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in 
Greenbelt, Maryland, discounts that possibility. “I have no 
reason to think that any anomaly is an artefact of the 
instrument,” he says. 

“The big question is: what could have caused it,” asks Magueijo. 

One possibility, he says, is that the universe is shaped like a slab, 
with space extending to infinity in two dimensions but spanning 
only about 20 billion light years in the third dimension. Or the 
universe might be shaped like a bagel. 

Interestingly enough, Magueijo concludes by showing how a 
geocentric cosmology with a rotating universe is one viable solution to the 
WMAP evidence: 

Another way to create a preferred direction would be to have a 
rotating universe , because this singles out the axis of rotation as 
different from all other directions. 530 

530 “Did the big bang really happen,” M. Chown, New Scientist, July 2, 2005, p. 6. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Earlier in the article Chown shows additional implications for 
WMAP’s discoveries against the Big Bang. 

What if the big bang never happened?...“Look at the facts,” says 

Riccardo Scarpa of the European 
Southern Observatory in 
Santiago, Chile. “The basic big 
bang model fails to predict what 
we observe in the universe in 
three major ways.” The 
temperature of today’s universe, 
the expansion of the cosmos, and 
even the presence of galaxies, 
have all had cosmologists 
scrambling for fixes. “Every time 
the basic big bang model has 
failed to predict what we see, the 
solution has been to bolt on something new - inflation, dark 
matter and dark energy,” Scarpa says... 

“This isn’t science,” says Eric Lemer who is president of 
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in West Orange, New Jersey, and 
one of the conference organizers. “Big bang predictions are 
consistently wrong and are being fixed after the event.” So much 
so, that today’s “standard model” of cosmology has become an 
ugly mishmash comprising the basic big bang theory, inflation 
and a generous helping of dark matter and dark energy. 

Chown adds Magueijo’s comment to this conclusion: 

Clearly, such a universe would flout a fundamental assumption 
of all big bang models: that the universe is the same in all places 
and in all directions. “People made these assumptions because, 
without them, it was impossible to simplify Einstein's equations 
enough to solve them for the universe,” says Magueijo. And if 
those assumptions are wrong, it could be curtains for the 
standard model of cosmology. That may not be a bad thing, 
according to Magueijo. “The standard model is ugly and 
embarrassing,” he says. “I hope it will soon come to breaking 
point.” But whatever replaced it would of course have to predict 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

all the things the standard model predicts. “This would be very 
hard indeed,” concedes Magueijo. 531 


X/ f 

$ • • • # 
x\% f • 0 

Preferred Axis 99.9% + Mirror Parity 90% = 99.99% 

Land & Magueijo astro-ph/0507289 

99.99% certainty of the "Axis of Evil" 1,32 

Attempted Explanations 

In an attempt to lessen the severity of the Axis of Evil against the 
Copemican Principle, some try to separate the dipole from higher € values 
(quadrupole, octuopole, etc.) and claim that the dipole is caused by “the 
peculiar velocity of the Earth relative to the co-moving cosmic rest frame 
as the planet moves at some 371 km/s towards the constellation Leo.” 533 

531 Ibid., pp. 1-3. Chown adds: “Last year they wrote an open letter warning that 
failure to fund research into big bang alternatives was suppressing free debate in 
the field of cosmology (New Scientist, 22 May 2004, p 20).” 

" 2 Graph taken from Kate Land’s seminar at: http://www.cita.utoronto. 
ca/TALKS/Land-Nov23 .pdf 
Another source has the Earth moving toward Virgo: “After the dipole anisotropy, 
which is due to the Doppler shift of the microwave background radiation due to 
our peculiar velocity relative to the co-moving cosmic rest frame, has been 
subtracted out. This feature is consistent with the Earth moving at some 627 km/s 
towards the constellation Virgo” ( 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

The CMB Dipole 

AT/T ~ 10 ’ 

' -■- motion of solar system 


There are two glaring anomalies in this claim. First, as John Ralston points 
out, in such solutions they are “forgetting there is an u nk nown 
cosmological piece,” namely, “By an apparently random accident the 
dipole happens to lie in the plane of the ecliptic, and point along Virgo. 
This is accepted with very little discussion, and nobody disbelieves the 
dipole.” 535 In other words, attributing the dipole to a movement of the 
Earth through the CMB is convenient enough, but it becomes a little too 
convenient when that movement is pointing to Virgo, which just happens 
to be in the same direction as the “Axis of Evil.” Even if it were true that 
the Earth is moving against the CMB (and not vice-versa, as in the 
geocentric system), still, this explanation misses the elephant in the room, 
i.e., that the entire universe, as represented by the CMB dipole, is aligned 
with the tiny Earth. One has to be blind or biased to miss this. 

The discrepancy of using Virgo as opposed to Leo is that the two constellations 
are next to each other in the Zodiac, and the dipole axis is between them, although 
closer to Leo. The 371km/s is the net speed of the sun minus any galactic 
movement toward Leo. 

534 Image from Cal Tech lecture on the CMB at 

535 John P. Ralston, “Question Isotropy,” Dept, of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. 
of Kansas, Nov. 2010, pp. 4-5. Ralston adds: “All are again well-aligned with the 
axis of Virgo. A subsequent study in 2008 diluted by higher values of C does not 
change this conclusion. And so if there is a local effect or bias producing the 
(many) alignments, it affects much of the actual power in the CMB, which then 
would not be ‘pristine’” and concluding with “cwr studies fine there is nothing 
supporting isotropy of the CMB, and everything about the data contradicting it.” 

Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

-Double arrow at 7:00 o'clock to 1:00 o'clock is the Axis of Evil and 
the CMB Dipole, with upper arrow pointing to Virgo-Leo and about 
23.5 degrees off center. 

-Double arrow at 10:00 o'clock to 4:00 o'clock is Asymmetric Axis 
aligned with the Sun-Earth ecliptic and is formed by the CMB 
quadrupole and octupole 

Second, we will notice from the graphs that the dipole axis is almost 
perpendicular to the quadrupole/octupole axis. Big Bang cosmology 
claims that the dipole axis is created by the sun-earth system moving 
through the CMB, which creates a Doppler blue shift. But how does Big 
Bang cosmology then explain the quadrupole/octupole axis, which is 
perpendicular to the dipole axis? It cannot be created by a movement of 
the sun-earth system through the CMB since, obviously, the sun-earth 
system cannot be going in one direction to create the dipole and, at the 
same time, going in an orthogonal direction to create the quadrupole and 
octupole. Something is definitely amiss here. 537 

536 Graph taken from Kate Land’s seminar at: http://www.cita.utoronto. 
ca/TALKS/Land-Nov23 .pdf 

537 Ralston, “Question Isotropy,” p. 5. Ralston may have made the same point 
when he says, “However the alignment of the quadrupole and octupole happens to 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

’ ' .Bootes 

Cqrna Berenices 



- j Leo .. 










4 %' 



Dipole axis runs between Leo and Virgo 

The Axis connecting the two largest CMB formations 

be right along the dipole, and point along Virgo. Some use this as a reason to 
dismiss the quadnipole and octupole, while retaining the rest of the CMB as 
‘pristine,’” but he made a mistake in saying that the quadrupole/octupole “point 
along Virgo” (since it is obvious that the quad- and octupole axis is perpendicular 
to the dipole axis). 

Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

The Axis connecting the four major CMB formations 

The Axis connecting the eight major CMB formations 

In 2006, one of the more notable modem cosmologists, Lawrence 
Krauss of Arizona State University, wrote a paper titled “The Energy of 
Empty Space is Not Zero,” which made this startling conclusion: 

But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure 
that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the 
plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming 
back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole 
universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the 
plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say 
we are truly the center of the universe ....The new results are 
either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center 
of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe 
it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave 
background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something 
wrong with our theories on the larger scales. 518 

Lawrence Krauss, b. 1954, Professor of 
Cosmology, Arizona State University 

In 2007, Dragan Huterer of the University of Michigan published a 
paper in Astronomy titled, “Why is the solar system cosmically aligned.” 539 
Eluterer, although speaking with Copemican glasses, writes of the startling 
data found by the Wilinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP): 

Developing the multipole vectors allowed us to examine how the 
CMB’s large-scale features align with each other and the ecliptic 
- the plane of Earth’s orbit around the sun....Not only are the 
quadrupole and octopole planar, but the planes are nearly 
perpendicular to the ecliptic....The likelihood of these 
alignments happening by chance is less than 0.1 percent....Why 

538 “The Energy of Empty Space is not Zero, 
_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2 _index.html 

539 Dragan Huterer, Astronomy, Dec. 2007, pp. 38-43. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

CMB patterns are oriented to the solar system is not at all 
understood at this time. 540 

That Huterer and his colleagues do not understand why the CMB is 
oriented to our solar system is quite an understatement. It makes it appear 
that merely because they don’t understand it, then it is not significant. In 

reality, it is the most astounding fact that 
modem cosmology has discovered. As one 
scientist said, “it should make the hair stand up 
on the back of your neck.” That the whole 
universe is aligned with our solar system is 
like saying the Milky Way is aligned with a 
pea. Be that as it may, Huterer is also rather 
casual about the fact that the quadrupole and 
octopole are planer and nearly perpendicular to 
the ecliptic. In reality this means that we 
possess the X and Y coordinates of a universal 
graph with our solar system at point 0, 0. All 
that is needed now is the Z axis to show that 
our system is in the exact center of the universe (but which is not possible 
with only two-dimensional plotting afforded by WMAP). As it turns out, 
the dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equinoxes and the quadrupole and 
octopoles are aligned with the Earth’s ecliptic. Even more amazing is the 
fact that the alignment of the CMB with the Earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes 
will be seen from any observation point in space. In other words, if an 
observer were stationed on a galaxy 50 million light years from Earth, he 
would see the CMB aligned with only one region in the universe - the 
Earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes. 

540 Ibid., p. 43. See also Scientific American, December 9, 2011 article titled 
“Universal Alignment: Could the Cosmos Have a Point” by Michael Moyer, 
which makes reference to Huterer’s findings, stating: “The universe has no center 
and no edge, no special regions ticked in among the galaxies and light. No matter 
where you look, it’s the same - or so physicists thought.. .hot and cold spots 
speckle the sky....Cosmologists have called it the ‘axis of evil.’” Likewise, 
Federico Urban and Ariel Zhitnitsky state “Similarly, one can employ different 
vectorial and tensorial decompositions of the multipoles to see that there is a very 
easily identifiable preferred axis, the cosmological dipole once again; that is, the 
normal vectors to the planes determined by the quadrupole and the octupole (there 
are four of them) point all in the same direction, that of the ecliptic and equinox” 
“The T-Odd Universe,” University of British Columbia, July 13, 2011, p. 2. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

I Cosmology 

Why is the 
solar system 


1J to / 

The solar system seems to line up 
with the largest cosmic features. Is 
this mere coincidence or a signpost 
to deeper insights? by dragan huterer 

"The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this 
mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights?" 

Dragan Huterer, Astronomy, December 2007, pages 38-39 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Tke CMB Dipole 

Wann CMB Dipole 
Aligned with |—\ 

Farth't Fmialnr 


> Cool CMB Dipole 

Z 1 —i Aligned with 

W ^ Earth’s Eoualor 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

With all this amazing evidence of a central Earth before him, what 
should Professor Huterer have concluded? He should have concluded the 
same that Dr. Lawrence Vescera concluded after he read Huterer’s 2007 
article. In “The Discovery that Dare Not Speak its Name” he writes: 

Steven Hawking, arguably the world’s greatest living 
astrophysicist, called it “the discovery of the millennium, if not 
all time.” Hawking was referring to the anisotropies of the 
Universe. Anisotropies are variations or inhomogeneities in a 
structure. The anisotropies referred to here are the temperature 
variations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) 
radiation distributed across the Universe. These temperature 
variations were left behind by the original creation event: they 
are the after glow of The Big Bang from which the Universe 
emerged. These variations are tiny, amounting to only about 
1/40,000 of a degree Celsius, but they are enormously 
consequential. It is from these minute variations that the current 
Universe developed its large scale structure of Galaxy Clusters 
and Super Clusters. This structure is also essential for the 
Universe to be able to support life. 

This of course is all quite interesting, but a shocking new set 
of findings has emerged from the study of the CMB. It has been 
discovered that the CMB, which pervades the entire Universe, is 
aligned to the Solar System. This means that, the original 
creation event, which produced all of space, time, matter, and 
energy, was precisely fine tuned so that it is aligned with the 
location and direction of the Solar System in which we live. 

This discovery has been so disturbing to some scientists that 
it has been most inappropriately labeled “The Axis of Evil.” 
Since this discovery was first made in 2003, many scientists 
have been trying to disprove it. Researchers have been studying 
the CMB since 1965 when it was first found to exist. Through 
the years, more sensitive instruments have been developed which 
have allowed ever more accurate maps of the CMB to be drawn. 

The best known of these were the 1992 COBE and the 2003 
WMAP satellite-based probes. The initial shock came when one 
alignment was discovered, but as work has progressed, instead of 
going away, at least three more of these “Cosmic Alignments” 
between the CMB and the Solar System have been uncovered. 

The first discovery was that the original Creation Event was 
divided into two hemispheres, called a Dipole, with one warm 
lobe and one cool lobe. What researchers were shocked to find 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

was that the plane of the Solar System sits at the exact division 
point, right in the middle of these two lobes. This means that the 
plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun exactly divides these 
two hemispheres . It was further discovered that the direction of 
the Sun’s motion around the center of our Galaxy is also closely 
aligned with this plane. 

Within each of the lobes of the dipole there are other cool and 
warm areas that have been located. There are a quadrupole (four 
lobes) and an octopole (eight lobes). To the researchers 
amazement, it has also been discovered that these mulitpoles are 
also planar and additionally are perpendicular to the Earth’s path 
around the sun. The likelihood of any of these alignments arising 
by chance is less than 1 in 1000. 

One of the Primary Axioms of Materialist Philosophy is the 
Copemican Principle, sometimes known as the Mediocrity 
Principle. Simply stated, it is the opinion that humans are not 
privileged as observers or in anyway. Therefore, there should be 
nothing special about where we live in the Universe, about our 
Galaxy, Solar System, or Planet. The Copemican Principle was 
offered as a counter to the widely asserted medieval beliefs that 
the Earth was at the center of the Universe, that man was in an 
exalted place, and that God’s existence was proved by these 
facts. Medieval scholars did not actually believe anything like 
this, but that is another story. 

The discovery that the CMB is cosmically aligned to the 
Earth should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. It 
points to the fact that the Earth is at a special place in the 
Universe and that God wants it to be known. In the source listed 
below, it is interesting to observe how the writers try to dance 
around this implication (the elephant in the room) without 
actually coming out and directly admitting the clear implication 
of these discoveries. We read for example, “The solar system 
seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere 
coincidence or a sign post to deeper insight?” “Careful analysis 
have confirmed these alignments exist. But we don’t know 
whether they are bizarre coincidences or if something more 
fundamental is at work.” As similar “coincidences” from every 
field of science are piling to the sky for all to see, the only ones 
who will not see are those who refuse to see. 541 

541 Lawrence Vescera, Nov. 9, 2007, 2007/11/09/the- 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Perhaps the astounding realization that the whole universe was 
aligned with the Earth was just too much for some scientific researchers. 
We see this phenomenon, for example, in the image released in 2004 by 
the Michigan university team of Schwarz, Starkman, Huterer and Copi. 
The black ecliptic line across the middle (from Tegmark’s original 2003 
image) is replaced with a looping S-type line. Hence, in Schwarz’s altered 
version, the plane of the Milky Way is now in the middle of the image, 
while the sun-earth ecliptic plane is removed from the center. 

(CMB) Dipole 

Schwarz. Starkman. Huterer & Copi 2004 

Normals to quadrupole, octopole 



Now let’s look at this Schwarz image with more defined labels for 
easier viewing. 

SEP (south ecliptic pole) 

Norrrult to quadrupolt. octopo4e 

FEQX (fall equinox) 

NEP (north ecliptic pole) 

NSGP (north 

galactic pole) 

SEQX (spring equinox) 


SSGP (south super¬ 
cluster galactic pole) 

(modified CMB map using larger labels for illustration purposes) 

The north and south poles of the local galactic supercluster are 
represented by the NSGP (north supercluster galactic pole) and the SSGP 
(south supercluster galactic pole), respectively, while the north ecliptic 
pole is represented by NEP (upper left) and the south ecliptic pole by SEP 
(lower right). But there is really no reason to display the CMB in this way 
since it doesn’t add any precision to the actual state of affairs and, in fact, 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

shows that demonstrating the CMB by galactic coordinates is much less 
remarkable than using geocentric coordinates. This is noted by the dash- 
perforated line (as opposed to the dot-perforated line) which represents the 
equator of the supergalatic cluster. As one can see, the attempt to put the 
CMB in galactic coordinates resulted in an equatorial line that is off-center 
and has less geometrical relation to the dipole or quadrupole/octopole. 
This configuration is puzzling since in their 2010 paper they admit: “Our 
studies indicate that the observed alignments are with the ecliptic plane, 
with the equinox or with the CMB dipole, and not with the Galactic 
plane.” Perhaps by 2010, after many studies over six years of the CMB’s 
alignment with the Earth, they realized their 2004 galactic alignment 
would no longer suffice and a much more precise truth needed to be told - 
the whole universe was aligned with the Earth. 

Another way to understand Schwarz’s change is to note that 
Tegmarks original image would need to be tilted in order to have 
approximately the same S-line. 

This leads us to conclude, of course, that the best representation of 
the relationship between Earth and the dipole/quadrupole/octupole is the 
original Tegmark graphic showing the hot and cold lobes on either side of 
the Earth’s ecliptic plane. In fact, if we take the galactic coordinates used 
in the previous graphic (NSGP, SSGP, NEP, SEP) and put them in the 
Tegmark graphic, it results in the following: 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

. N?P 

.SEQX Ecliptic FEQX. * °*P q * > SBI^^SEQX. 
• Dipot* 

Original Tegmark 2003 Mollweide image marked with Schwarz' 2004 labels 542 

■ NEP 



Same Tegmark image transposed to the sphere of the universe 

Notice that the fall equinox (FEQX in yellow area) is in the center 
with the dipole, while the spring equinox (SEQX in light blue/green area) 
is with the other dipole. The fall and spring equinoxes rest on the ecliptic, 
and the quadrupoles/octopoles (red and blue lobes) are on either side of the 
ecliptic, showing once again that the dipole straddles the ecliptic during 
the equinoxes while the quadrupole and octopoles are orthogonal to the 

542 My thanks to Gerry Bouw for his help in analyzing this data. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

ecliptic, which combination forms an X and Y axes with Earth directly in 
the center of it all. 

All the studies show that the characteristics of the CMB: (a) lean 
heavily against the Big Bang theory and (b) suggest that our local system 
(e.g., sun, Earth and planets) is either a central source or the central 
depository or “sink” for the CMB radiation. This means that the Earth and 
its neighbors are in the center of the phenomenon. The Copi team 
acknowledges that the positioning of the poles symmetrically above and 
beneath the ecliptic is to be inteipreted as no accident. Even in the 
heliocentric model, the CMB poles could not position themselves in 
respect of the Earth’s rotation or translation since the poles have no 
reaction to such movement. In either model there can be no other 
conclusion than the orientation of the CMB is purely geocentric. 

The Dipole axis intersects with the Quadrupole/Octupole axis, forming 
an X and Y graph, with Earth at or very near the intersection point 

In a recent interview, speaking for the team, Glenn Starkman of Case 
Western University stated: “All this is mysterious. And the strange thing 
is, the more you delve into it, the more mysteries you find.” This is a polite 
way of saying that he is shocked that the CMB is geocentrically orientated, 
since that is the last thing he expected to find by working from a Big Bang 
model. Nevertheless, in an attempt to put a damper on the geocentric 
possibilities, Starkman adds: “None of us believe that the universe knows 
about the solar system, or that the solar system knows about the 
universe.” 543 “Far more plausible, he says, is that something within our 

541 Dan Falk, Astronomy Magazine, Dec. 8, 2004, p. 1-2. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

solar system is producing or absorbing microwaves,” 544 but, of course, 
neither Starkman nor any other cosmologist has detected such a source in 
the solar system. In the end one can see how the team’s presuppositions 
determine how they will proceed to inteipret the data. Their proposed 
solution sounds like the rationale for claiming that Dark Matter and Dark 
Energy exist even though they have found absolutely no evidence for 
them, even after searching for the last 40 years. 545 It is believed because it 
is needed to prop up the present paradigm. As always, the geocentric 
possibilities are summarily dismissed since such notions are, as we found 
earlier, “unthinkable” for the modem science community. The other 
possibility is that “the patterns seen by Dr. Starkman and his colleagues 
might simply be a fluke - an accidental alignment between the solar 
system and patterns in the CMB radiation.” 546 Another physicist said: “The 
precise directional coincidences with solar system alignments are certainly 
thought-provoking. It may look like a smoking gun.. .but I’m going with 
the fluke hypothesis for now.” 547 But the “fluke” hypothesis has been ruled 
out by a 99% confidence level in the collected data. 

In a geocentric universe, the most likely reason for the CMB 
alignment with our equinoxes and ecliptic is the Coriolis force created by a 
rotating universe. Just as the Coriolis force will give direction to air and 
water currents on Earth (clockwise in the northern hemisphere and 
counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere), so it does with the heat 
distribution of the universe. In fact, comparing maps of the warm/cool 
deposits of the CMB with those of the maps of Earth’s air and water 
currents, the resemblance between the two is quite remarkable. Since in 
the geocentric system the Coriolis force is a real force created by rotating 
universe (and not merely an effect as it is in the heliocentric system), we 
would expect that its influence extends from the edge of the universe to the 
very center. It will thus induce movements of the CMB, as well as the 
rotation of galaxies and the oscillation of the Foucault pendulum. 

544 Dan Falk, “Cosmic oddity casts doubt on theory of universe,” The Globe and 
Mail, Jan. 29, 2005, updated Mar. 17, 2009. 

545 A recent study Chilean astronomers confirms its absence. They write: “The 
amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see - stars, dust 
and gas - in the region around the sun, but this leaves no room for the extra 
material - dark matter - that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it 
should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not 
there!” (“Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?,” ScienceDaily , April 18, 2012). 

546 Ibid. 

547 Dan Falk quoting Craig Hogan of the University of Washington in Seattle, 
Astronomy Magazine, December 8, 2004, p. 1-2. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

NASA's Interpretation of WMAP Data 

In December 2012 NASA released its “Nine-Year Wilkinson 
Microwave Anisotropy Probe Observations: Final Maps and Results,” 
which was headed up by C. L. Bennett of the Department of Physics and 
Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University. 548 As we would expect, Bennett 
tries his best to interpret the WMAP data in accord with the Big Bang. He 
writes: “The WMAP mission has resulted in a highly constrained ACDM 
cosmological model with precise and accurate parameters in agreement 
with a host of other cosmological measurements.” 549 Perhaps the phrase 
“highly constrained” shows that it wasn’t an easy task for Bennett. 
Certainly he would have preferred to use the phrase “highly refined” if the 
data had allowed him, but a “highly constrained” model means that only 
within certain parameters and assumptions will the ACDM (Big Bang) 
model be able to fit with the WMAP data. Included in those assumptions 
are Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Like most modem cosmologists, 
Bennett just assumes they exist due to the fact that his model needs them 
to exist, but he provides no empirical evidence to confirm their existence. 
As such, the Big Bang model is based on nothing more than a phantom. 550 

NASA, as we would expect, claims that the anisotropies of the CMB 
“support the case for the gravitational evolution of structure in the universe 

548 December 20, 2012, at arXiv:1212.5225vl. 

549 “Nine-Year WMAP Observations,” p. 2. 

550 NASA admits at the end of its paper that it is using Dark Matter and Dark 
Energy. “(14) The requirement for both cold dark matter, which gravitates but 
does not interact with photons, and a substantial mass-energy component 
consistent with a cosmological constant [Dark Energy], which causes an 
accelerated expansion of the universe as characterized by Type la supernovae 
measurements, is unavoidable because of the precision of the available data and 
the multiple methods of measurement. The CMB fluctuations require dark matter 
and dark energy. The inability to predict a value for vacuum energy was a pre¬ 
existing physics problem, but particle physics has no problem positing massive 
particles that do not interact with photons as candidates for the CDM. If the 
massive particles do not decay or annihilate, their identity makes little difference 
to cosmology. It may well turn out that the dominant mass-energy component of 
our universe is a cosmological constant arising from vacuum energy, and that the 
vacuum energy is fundamentally not a specifically predictable quantity. It will be 
exciting to see how current theories develop, and especially fascinating how well 
these theories can be tested with data. The CMB is a unique remnant of the early 
universe which has been our primary cosmological observable. It continues to be 
imperative to learn all that we can from it” {ibid., 134). As we have seen, 
however, the “vacuum energy” provides the Big Bang advocates with 10 12 ° too 
much mass and energy for their preferred universe. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

from primordial fluctuations.” 551 As we have noted earlier, the anisotropies 
of the CMB put NASA between the proverbial rock and a hard place. On 
the one hand, original Big Bang theory did not predict the presence of 
anisotropies. It predicted an isotropic and homogeneous spreading out of 
the initial explosion. Moreover, without having to worry about 
anisotropies, there would be no worry of their peculiar alignment with the 
Earth and no threat to the Copemican principle. On the other hand, since 
anisotropies were discovered in 1978, which is about 50 years after the Big 
Bang predictions were made, NASA would eventually be forced to 
produce a cogent answer for these “anomalies.” The answer came from 
NASA after it made sure the anisotropies were real, which certainty came 
after the 1989 COBE and 2001 WMAP missions, and is now confirmed by 
the 2009 PLANCK mission. Hence, forced to account for the anisotropies, 
NASA did the only thing it could do - invent an answer that sounded 
cogent. After a few possibilities were suggested, they settled on the idea 
that the CMB anisotropies were the seeds of galaxies. As we can see, this 
is a very convenient cosmology. 

As we would also expect, NASA’s paper contains not one word about 
the anisotropies showing evidence of what has become known among all 
cosmologists as the “Axis of Evil.” Likewise, the names of Land and 
Magueijo who were the first to coin the “Axis of Evil” in 2004, are not 
mentioned in NASA’s paper. NASA’s paper doesn’t contain one word 
about the axes of the CMB dipole, quadrupole and octupole aligning with 
the Sun-Earth ecliptic or with the Earth’s equinoxes, respectively. It 
doesn’t mention the names of Copi, Huterer, Starkman, and Schwarz from 
the University of Michigan, who have done the most work on the 
anisotropies of the WMAP data and have thus discovered the Earth’s 
unique alignment with the CMB. Even Max Tegmark, although he is 
mentioned twice in NASA’s paper, is cited only from 1997-1998, long 
before 2003 when he saw the vector poles of the CMB pointing from Earth 
to Virgo, and which discovery led to the work of Copi and his colleagues. 

Instead NASA admits to various instances in which it unilaterally 
chose to ignore the CMB poles, such as “We start with a simple 
foreground model consisting of several simple power laws, and 
progressively add complexity to the model to improve the fit. The 
foreground model we use involves temperature only; we did not try to fit 
polarization.” 552 But the whole reason for the consternation regarding 
WMAP’s data is its more than obvious Earth-centered polarization results. 
NASA’s intention is confirmed by an even more revealing statement: 



Ibid., p. 3. 
Ibid., p. 70. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

The CMB is modeled as a blackbody with constant 
thermodynamic temperature. To make the CMB fit look 
statistically isotropic, we add a prior that the CMB must be 
within 5 pK rms of the nine-year 1LC. Without this prior, the 
data do not constrain the CMB very tightly in the galactic plane, 
and we find the CMB preferring values lower than -250 pK. 553 

In other words, NASA is telling us that they squeezed the data into 
their preferred (or “prior”) molds in order to “make the CMB fit look 
statistically isotropic.” We see that isotropy, not anisotropy, is the goal of 
NASA. Why? The following comment reveals that if they don’t use 
“prior” molds then “the data do not constrain the CMB very tightly.” This 
relates back to NASA’s opening statement that “The WMAP mission has 
resulted in a highly constrained ACDM cosmological model.” That is, 
NASA wants the CMB to be as isotropic as possible since this will be the 
best fit for the Big Bang universe it is promoting. In other words, NASA is 
admitting that it will seek to conform the data to the predicted isotropic 
Big Bang model as much as possible. This is what modem science has 
become. The model is put on a pedestal and the data is made to conform to 
it rather than the reverse. We see right from the get-go what NASA’s 
intentions are when we see it juxtaposing “CMB anisotropies” with “CMB 
anomalies.” 554 It is only an “anomaly” to one who wants isotropy so that 
he can make the evidence fit his pre-conceived model. This molding of the 
data to fit the preferred model is also noted in the following: 

Adding a spinning dust component with peak frequency of 15.1 
GHz (which is 0.85 times the CNM peak frequency of 17.8 
GHz) does improve the fit, and allowing that peak frequency to 
vary between 12.5 GHz and 17.8 GHz helps even more. See 
Models 4 and 5. 555 

In other words, since adding another variable into the mix produces more 
isotropy and less anisotropy, NASA can produce what it deems as a viable 
model of the Big Bang universe. Perhaps the reason why a “spinning dust” 
model is preferred is stated here: “The spinning dust component is 

553 Ibid., 72. 

554 Page 132: “This portion of the template-corrected sky is strongly dominated by 
CMB anisotropy ....Having addressed the quadmpole value, the quadmpole- 
octupole alignment, and the general goodness-of-fit, we find no convincing 
evidence of CMB anomalies beyond the normal statistical ranges that should be 
anticipated to occur in a rich dataset.” 

555 Ibid., p. 73. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

assumed to have negligible polarization” 556 (since polarization would lead 
to the Axis of Evil), or here “If we do not allow the spectral index to vary, 
we again get bad fits in Models 6 and 7. However, a varying spectral index 
combined with a spinning dust component produces results that are 
fractionally better than a pure power law with the same spinning dust 
components,” 557 (since two variables to produce the Big Bang are better 
than one). But in the end, NASA admits: “Throughout this paper we use 
the term ‘spinning dust’ without regard to the accuracy of the implied 
underlying physical model...The actual physical emission mechanism(s) 
of this component may not yet be fully understood,” 558 yet NASA decided 
to use them in any case, since they make the Big Bang look credible. 

Despite the obvious fudging of the data to fit its Big Bang model, 
NASA puts on an air of unbiased research as it prides itself on its “new 
procedures” in collecting data: 

As a result of this new procedure, the previously reported map 
power asymmetry, which we speculated was due to the 
asymmetric beams and not cosmology (Bennett et al. 2011) has 
indeed been mitigated in the new beam-symmetrized maps. In 
this paper we use the beam-symmetrized maps for foreground 
analyses, but not for cosmological analyses due to the more 
complex noise properties of these maps.” 559 

This is all well and good, but power asymmetries are not the cause of 
the Axis of Evil. The Axis is caused by the Earth-centered anisotropies in 
the CMB data, the very anisotropies that NASA is obviously trying to 
eliminate from the data as much as it can. For example, in one graph the 

Ibid., p. 67. 

557 Ibid., 73. 

558 Ibid., 131. Regarding dust models, Copi, Huterer, et al, state: “A number of 
authors have attempted to explain the observed quadmpole-octopole correlations 
in terms of a new foreground — for example the Rees-Sciama effect, interstellar 
dust, local voids, or the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect. Most if not all of these 
proposals have a difficult time explaining the anomalies without severe fine 
tuning....Dikarev et al. studied the question of whether solar system dust could 
give rise to sizable levels of microwave emission or absorption.. ..Such an extra 
contribution along the ecliptic could give rise to CMB structures aligned with the 
ecliptic, but those would look very different from the observed ones. On top of 
that. Solar system dust would be a new additive foreground and could not explain 
the lack of large angle correlations. Thus it seems unlikely that Solar system dust 
grains cause the reported large angle anomalies...” (op. cit., “Large Scale 
Anomalies in the CMB,” 2010, p. 11) 

559 Ibid., p. 11. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

caption reads: “Microwave emission near the Galactic plane is traced by a 
K-band minus W-band difference map, which eliminates CMB 
anisotropy,” yet NASA gives no explanation why it subtracted the W- 
band, which is a completely different kind of measurement since it is much 
more insensitive to CMB anisotropies. See Figure below: 

Fig. 12. Microwave emission near the Galactic plane is traced by a K-band minus W-band 
difference map. which eliminates CMB anisotropy. A log scale is used for the color region 
and blue circles represent the positions of the brightest point sources, as seen by WMAP. 

In another graph, NASA skips right over the important data. See graph 

Multipole moment / 

Fig. 32.— The nine-year WMAP TT angular power spectrum. The WMAP data are in 
black, with error bars, the best fit model is the red curve, and the smoothed binned cosmic 
variance curve is the shaded region. The first three acoustic peaks are well-determined. 

This is one of the most important graphs concerning the CMB. It appears 
on page 100 of the 2012 NASA paper. It shows three major peaks of CMB 
multipoles (~ 200£, 500t and 800£). In theory, these peaks should not be 
present in the homogeneous, isotropic, Gaussian and infinite universe of 
the Big Bang, or at the least they were not predicted by the Big Bang. As 
we noted earlier from Copi who analyzed these multipole moments: 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe is very difficult to explain within the context of the 
canonical Inflationary Lambda Cold Dark Matter of cosmology 
[i.e., the Big Bang]....Our first observation is that none of those 
data curves look like the [LCDM] theory curve....It is extremely 
difficult to arrange for the C ( to have particular relative values in 
the context of the standard inflationary model...the observed 
sky, at least the part outside the Galaxy cut, seems not to respect 
the fundamental prediction of the standard cosmological model 
that the ac m are independent random variables...for the lowest 
multipoles and the largest angular skies, the observations 
disagree markedly with the predictions of the [Big Bang] 
theory. 560 

The above graph, in its essence, represents the dipole, quadrupole and 
octupole anisotropies of the CMB. It is, in a word, a graph of the “Axis of 
Evil.” Some try to pass off these anomalous peaks as part-and-parcel of 
Big Bang cosmology. For example, an entry at Wikipedia has a similar 
graph and states: “The angular scale of the first peak determines the 
curvature of the universe....The next peak—ratio of the odd peaks to the 
even peaks—determines the reduced baryon density. The third peak can be 
used to get information about the dark matter density.” 561 Thi s is just 
another way of twisting the data to fit a preconceived model. These peaks 
are only indirectly related to Big Bang predictions; and they are fudged to 
fit the Big Bang. In reality, these peaks destroy the both the cosmological 
and Copemican principles upon which the Big Bang is based. 

Other Big Bang cosmologists are at least honest with the data on the 
graph. For example, an astronomer who publishes on the Internet, Ethan 
Siegel, states: 

There are people who look at the quadrupole and octopole 
moments of the Cosmic Microwave Background — or the first 
two points on the graph above — and question the entirety of 
modem cosmology. Why? Because they state that the “odds” of 
having a Universe that conspired to give those two data points 
just randomly is relatively low....When you hear the 

560 “The Oddly Quiet Universe: How the CMB Challenges Cosmology’s Standard 
Model,” Glenn D. Starkman, Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz, 
January 12, 2012, acXiv: 1201.2459vl. 

561 under 
the subtitle. Primary anisotropy. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

terminology “Axis of Evil” applied to cosmology, this is what 
they’re talking about. 562 

Angular scale 

90 ° 2 ° 0 . 5 ° 0 . 2 ° 

As we can see from the above graph 56 ’ not only did WMAP chart the same 
peaks, four other studies (Acbar, Boomerang, CBI and VSA) found the 
same precise results. Consequently, the results cannot be dismissed. 
Siegel, rather than pretend these anomalous peaks are predicted by, or can 
be explained by, the Big Bang theory, understands that he must take a 
different route if he wants to escape being forced into admitting that the 
whole universe is oriented around little Earth. Thus he retorts: 

But there’s nothing special at all about it: if we simulated our 
Universe millions of times, alignments like this in those two data 
points would occur hundreds of times. We just happen to live in 
a Universe where it did. 

As we have seen earlier with others caught in this cosmological 
dilemma, Siegel opts for the Multiverse - a pure invention of his mind to 
solve his problems. Rather than face the fact that the odds of having three 
peaks show alignments that correlate with the Earth’s ecliptic and 
equinoxes is about 1 to a hundred million (according to Copi), Siegel has 
no other option than to make his wager against such astronomical odds. 

Glenn Starkman’s analysis of specifies the low-E anomaly of the 
WMAP data. In the following graph, Starkman notes in the regtangular 

Ml2 http://scienceblogs.eom/startswithabang/2013/01/l 1/the-last-refuge-of-a-scien 

563 Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia. 0 rg/wiki/File:P 0 werSpectrumExt.svg 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

area where the quadrupole of the CMB does not fit the LCDM Big Bang 

Angular scale (deg) 

90 2 0.5 0.2 

Low-£ multipole anomaly 

In the same lecture, Starkman points out that the “two-point 
correlation” method of analysis shows an even greater discrepancy 
between Big Bang predictions and WMAP results. 

564 Taken from Glenn Starkman’s lecture titled: “If the CMB is right, it is 
inconsistent with standard inflationary Lambda CDM.” The abstract says: “The 
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is our most important source of 
information about the early universe. Many of its features are in good agreement 
with the predictions of the so-called standard model of cosmology - the Lambda 
Cold Dark Matter Inflationary Big Bang. However, the large-angle correlations in 
the microwave background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies 
compared to the predictions of the standard model. On the one hand, the lowest 
multipoles seem to be correlated not just with each other but with the geometry of 
the solar system. On the other hand, when we look at the part of the sky that we 
most trust - the part outside the galactic plane, there is a dramatic lack of large 
angle correlations. So much so that no choice of angular powerspectrum can 
explain it if the alms are Gaussian random statistically isotropic variables of zero 
mean.” Starkman’s conclusion is that WMAP “contradicts predictions of generic 
inflationary models at >99.97% C.L. [confidence level], and of contrived models 
at ~97%”. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Two-point correlation method of analysis 

In another place NASA says: “The primary difficulty with any 
method of extracting the CMB from the data is determining how much of 
the temperature in each pixel is foreground and how much is CMB. The 
data only constrain the sum of these two, and we must make other 
assumptions in order to separate them.” 566 But other studies, namely, those 
of the Copi team, have done extensive studies on foreground 
contamination and concluded it is negligible. Additionally, NASA claims: 
“The ILC specifically assumes that the CMB has a blackbody spectrum 
while the foregrounds do not,” 567 but since the background contains 
galaxies that do not have a blackbody spectrum, NASA’s assumption is 
invalid. Similar invalid remarks come when NASA says: 

We conclude that our ability to remove foregrounds is the 
limiting factor in our measurement of the cosmological 
quadrupole-octupole alignment. We cannot currently remove 

565 Ibid. The “toy model” was deleted from the graph in order to make the contrast 
between the LCDM model that C. L. Bennett is supporting from the actual 
WMAP results. 

566 Ibid., p. 83. 

567 Ibid., pp. 83-84. A similar unproven assumption comes in the next sentence: 
“In addition, the ILC assumes that while the foregrounds may change amplitude 
across a region, an individual foreground does not change its spectral shape 
(proportional to antenna temperature as a function of frequency), so that a set of 
ILC weights can null a given foreground everywhere in a region.” 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

foregrounds to the level needed to be sure the alignment is 
significant. The statistical significance of any alignment must be 
further degraded by the posterior selection made to examine this 
particular alignment. 568 

Of course, this kind of logic only comes back to bite NASA, for if 
one claims that one needs a certain removal of A in order to distinguish A 
from B, how does he know he is removing A if he can’t distinguish it from 
B? The fact is, NASA already sees a quadrupole/octupole alignment, even 
with the amount of foreground contamination it has already accepted. 

Perhaps the real reason NASA is reluctant to admit to a full scale 
Earth/CMB alignment is that it is much harder to produce an alternative 
explanation using the quadrupole/octupole than the dipole. 569 We are 
suspicious of such a motivation when we come across “analytical 
adjustments” such as this one: 

We first find that the quadrupole and octupole in the nine-year 
1LC are misaligned by about 3°, instead of being exactly aligned 
(to < 0.5°) in the seven-year 1LC. We believe this is due in part 
to the deconvolution algorithm that we applied to the nine-year 
maps before constructing the 1LC from them. After applying the 
perturbations, we find the median quadrupole-octupole 
misalignment to be 6°....This means there is less than a 3a 
detection of alignment. 570 

In other words, the “deconvolution algorithm” reduced the accuracy 
of the analysis, which then reduced the improbability of the 
quadrupole/octupole alignment, and thus the certainty of the alignment 
itself to be reduced. How convenient. This is analogous to a man using a 
sharp axe to shave his face instead of a razor, which resulted in reducing 
the amount of facial hair he could cut off. What NASA doesn’t say is that 
if it had tightened up the “deconvolution algorithm” instead of loosening 
it, the results would be much closer to the seven-year ILC. Still, after all 
the talk about a difference, NASA then says: “The quadrupole/octupole 
alignment remains approximately the same in the nine-year as seven-year 

568 Ibid., 113. 

569 NASA explains the dipole by claiming “dipole anisotropy [is] induced by the 
motion of the WMAP spacecraft with respect to the CMB rest frame” {ibid. p. 8). 
This explanation assumes, of course, that the CMB is a rest frame (but, curiously, 
also expanding faster than the speed of light). In any case, NASA proffers no such 
“rest frame” explanation for the quadrupole/octupole anisotropy. 

570 Ibid., p. 113. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

data...” 571 Consequently, after all the adjustments and uncertainties foisted 
on the data in this 2012 paper, NASA must admit that it cannot eliminate 
the alignments. Unfortunately for the reader, what NASA does not admit is 
that the alignments point directly to Earth as the center of the universe. 

On the one hand, NASA has told us of their inability to measure 
accurately the anomalous CMB alignments; on the other hand, it claims 
the anomalies are merely expected statistical variations. In neither case, 
however, do they allow the reader to entertain any other possibilities as to 
why these “anomalies” exist. Propping up the Big Bang model is the only 
motivation for the analysis of NASA’s present 2012 study of the CMB. 

Tke 2009 Planck Probe 

The Planck probe was sent up into space in 2009 by the European 
Space Agency with assistance from NASA. Its results were released on 
March 21, 2013. Since the scanning beam had a much shorter wavelength 
than the 2001 WMAP probe, Planck provided a much clearer and detailed 
image of the CMB sky. The big question on everyone’s mind was whether 
Planck would confirm WMAP’s findings or deny them as mere artifacts. 
To everyone’s amazement, Planck not only confirmed WMAPs findings, it 
provided such a clear picture of the CMB sky that it left both ESA and 
NASA scientists with the very difficult task of trying to fit the Planck data 
in to the standard model of cosmology, the Big Bang. As Paolo Natoli of 
the University of Ferrara, Italy put it: “The fact that Planck has made such 
a significant detection of these anomalies erases any doubts about their 
reality; it can no longer be said that they are artifacts of the measurements. 
They are real and we have to look for a credible explanation.” 572 

Although neither NASA nor ESA have made it clear they will not 
admit the COBE, WMAP or Planck results defy the Copemican Principle, 
still, we get hints of recognition that all is not well with the Big Bang 
universe. For example, the ESA article admits that “One of the most 
surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the CMB temperatures at 
large angular scales do not match those predicted by the standard model.” 
This is quite an understatement. In plain terms it means Planck’s results do 
not support Big Bang cosmology for most (“large angular scales”) of the 
universe. ESA also admits: “Another is an asymmetry in the average 
temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky. This runs counter to the 
prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly 

571 Ibid., p. 132. 

572 Michael Rundle, “ESA’s Planck Satellite Reveals Most Precise Image Ever 
Made of the Primordial Universe,” Huffington Post, March 21, 2013. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

similar in any direction we look.” This is another understatement. In 
layman’s terms it means that the predictions of the Big Bang universe 
provided by Einstein’s General Relativity equations that were adjusted by 
Friedmann, Lamaitre, Robertson and Walker (FLRW) to produce an 
isotropic and homogeneous universe are falsified by the Planck data. 

Original ESA image of Planck probe results, March 21, 2013 

Comparison of Planck and WMAP showing same results of CMB 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

In the same article, Rundle says: “But the data could prove troubling 
for some scientists, as it includes ‘large scale anomalies’ which point to a 
preferred direction of energy fluctuations in the universe - the so called 
‘Axis of Evil.’” 573 New Scientist said much the same: “Planck’s map 
greatly improves cosmologists’ understanding of the universe, but it does 
not solve lingering mysteries over unusual patterns in the CMB. These 
include a ‘preferred’ direction in the way the temperature of the light 
varies, dubbed the cosmic ‘axis of evil’....Cosmologists can’t pack up and 
go home just yet though, as Planck’s map has also confirmed the presence 
of a mysterious alignment of the universe. The ‘axis of evil’ was identified 
by Planck’s predecessor, NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy 
Probe (WMAP)...Planck’s detectors are over 10 times more sensitive and 
have about 2.5 times the angular resolution of WMAP’s, giving 
cosmologists a much better look at this alignment. ‘We can be extremely 
confident that these anomalies are not caused by galactic emissions and 
not caused by instrumental effects, because our two instruments see very 
similar features,’ said Efstathiou.” 574 

The Planck analysis published in March 2013 by the California 
Institute of Technology (CIT) basically says the same thing. In the 
Overview the abstract states, “Several large scale anomalies in the CMB 
temperature distribution detected earlier by WMAP are confirmed with 
higher confidence.” 575 Yet two sentences later it says, “Planck finds no 
evidence for non-Gaussian statistics of the CMB anisotropies.” Both 
statements are then modified in Paper XXIII’s abstract: “Deviations from 
isotropy have been found and demonstrated to be robust against 
component separation algorithm, mask and frequency dependence. Many 
of these anomalies were previously observed in the WMAP data, and are 
now confirmed at similar levels of significance (around 3a). However, we 
find little evidence for non-Gaussianity with the exception of a few 
statistical signatures that seem to be associated with specific anomalies.” 
The modification is also in XXIII’s section 4.1: “However, it is clear that, 
except on the largest angular scales, there is no evidence for non-Gaussian 
behaviour in the data using these simple statistical measures.” 576 

On the one hand, CIT holds on a statistical basis from Gaussian 
Distribution Function 577 that the Planck evidence more or less follows the 
standard Bell-curve plot, and thus matches up with the LCDM (Big Bang) 

574 Jacob Aron, “Planck shows almost perfect cosmos - plus axis of evil,” March 

575 http://planck.caltech.edii/piib/2013resiilts/Planck_2013_results_01.pdf 




Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

predictions. On the other hand, Gaussian distribution includes incidences 
in which the data does not fit the Bell-curve, thus exposing anomalies that 
do not coincide with Big Bang predictions. The Planck team attempts to 
make the anomalies insignificant, but in reality they are akin to the 
proverbial pink elephant in the room. In the end, it matters little how much 
one can fit the Planck data into the Big Bang. The fact remains that the Big 
Bang did not predict, and could not predict, the Axis of Evil. The Axis is 
analogous to a mold of Jell-0 (representing CMB isotropies and 
homogeneity) with two swords (representing CMB anisotropies and 
inhomogeneity) going right through the middle. 

Similarly, it is comparable to drawing a big X on the whole universe, 
in which each of the four ends of the X touch the rim of the universe; and 
in which the middle of the X, where the two lines intersect, there we find 
the ecliptic and equinoxes of the Earth, at the very center of the universe. 

For NASA and ESA to claim that most of the Planck data matches the 
Big Bang predictions is like saying that two polka-dot dresses match each 
other in 95% of their style, except for the big polka dots that line 
themselves up in the front of the dress. In the end, it is not the similarities 
that determine whether they are comparable or contrasting, but the 
differences. Even with only a 1% difference between the two images, it 
amounts to a world of difference in their respective meanings. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

The Planck team’s casual references to mere “anomalies,” or 
“deviations from isotropy” or “a few statistical signatures” shows that they 
are seeking to minimize the differences, but it is precisely these differences 
that constitute the Axis of Evil. Likewise, it matters little how much of the 
sky the Planck team determines the Axis occupies, or how much they 
determine it doesn’t fit on the Bell curve. The mere fact that the Axis 
exists completely overturns the Copemican Principle and leaves the Big 
Bang theorists without any explanation whatsoever as to the Axis’ origin. 

In the end, the Planck probe data has confirmed that the whole 
universe is centered around Earth and that the Big Bang inflation theory 
has been falsified to its core. Few modern cosmologists can accept this 
death sentence, however. It is for this reason that they will now conjure up 
all kinds of fanciful explanations. For example, after admitting “the origins 
of what some cosmologists have called the ‘Axis of Evil’ remains 
mysterious” and that “the ESA concedes it is no longer possible to dismiss 
it as some kind of data glitch or trick of the cosmic light,” the latest 
conjecture is that one of the “blue spots” that helps form the Axis “is the 
result of another universe colliding with our own,” and concluding that “if 
our universe really is just one of a myriad filling the Multiverse, then 
collisions with our neighbors are inevitable. And the result of such 
collisions would be circular temperature anomalies - similar to the cold 
spot now seen by Planck.” 578 Thi s is what now passes for “science” in the 
halls of academia. The Multiverse will now become modem cosmology’s 
response of choice in order to wiggle out of every piece of evidence that 
points to a non-Copemican universe. 

578 “Ripples from another dimension,” TheNational, Robert Matthews, April 7, 
2013; www. thenational. ae/news/uae-news/ripples-from-another-dimension. See 
also “Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck 2013” by Anna Ijjas, Paul 
Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb (arXiv:1304.2785vl April 9, 2013. They state: “In 
sum, we find that recent experiment data disfavors all the best-motivated [Big 
Bang] inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the 
core of the inflationary paradigm.” 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Correlation between tbe CMB Axis an dPref erred 
Sp in Direction o f Sp iral Galaxies 

In 2009, Michael Longo of the 
University of Michigan did a study of more 
than 15,000 spiral galaxies in the northern 
hemisphere from the 2005 Sloan Digital Sky 
Survey data. Longo reiterates the astounding 
WMAP data we have already cited: 

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy 
Probe (WMAP) studied the cosmic 
microwave background (CMB) 
radiation (G. Hinshaw et al. 2006). 
Their results for the angular power spectra have been analyzed 
by Schwarz et al. (2004) and many others. Schwarz et al. show 
that: (1) the quadrupole plane and the three octopole planes are 
aligned, (2) three of these are orthogonal to the ecliptic , (3) the 
normals [perpendicular vectors] to these planes are aligned with 
the direction of the cosmological dipole and with the equinoxes . 

The respective probabilities that these alignments could happen 
by chance are 0.1%, 0.9%, and 0.4%. This alignment is 
considered to be so bizarre that it has been referred to as “ the 
axis of evil” (AE) by K. Land and J. Magueijo (2005). Their 
nominal AE is at (1, b) ~ (-100°, 60°), corresponding to (RA, 8) 

= (173°, 4°). The alignment with the ecliptic and equinoxes is 
especially problematic because this would suggest a serious bias 

in the WMAP data that is related to the direction of the Earth’s 

spin axis , which is highly unlikely. 579 

In actuality, the findings are only “problematic” for those who have 
based their cosmological interpretations on the Copemican Principle. The 
WMAP data is obviously non-Copernican. Be that as it may, Longo’s 
study is particularly important because he found the spin of spiral galaxies 
is aligned with the “axis of evil.” He writes: 

The approximate agreement of the spin alignment axis with the 
WMAP quadrupole/octopole axes reinforces the finding of an 

579 “Evidence for Preferred Handedness in Spiral Galaxies,” Michael J. Longo, 
University of Michigan, 2009 
.3793.pdf, p. 8. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

asymmetry in spiral galaxy handedness and suggests that this 
special axis spans the universe. The fact that the spin asymmetry 
appears to be independent of redshift suggests that it is not 
connected to local structure. On the other hand, the spiral galaxy 
handedness represents a unique and completely independent 
confirmation that the AE is not an artifact in the WMAP data due 
to foreground contamination....It is interesting to note that the 
spiral galaxy alignment implies that the universe has a 
handedness as well as a unique axis. 580 

Longo concludes that not only is the spiral galaxy spin axis aligned 
with the “axis of evil,” but the spin axis “spans the universe” and is 
“unique.” For the geocentric system this discovery fits like a glove since 
Longo’s axis is inclined 23.5° to the axis around which the universe itself 
rotates. The “asymmetry” he is finding is due to the fact that the universe 
spins around its center of mass in only one direction (clockwise), and does 
so with a slight precession. 

News of this spin axis among galaxies hit the popular science 
magazines. New Scientist covered the story in October 2011 and again in 
August 2012. Interestingly enough, the former article begins: “So the 
universe is both expanding and accelerating. Fine. Now, though, hold on to 
your hats - it might be spinning, too.” The second says: 

A similar bias among structures of cosmic proportions would 
have deep implications. For example, if more galaxies are 
spinning one way than the other, this implies that the universe 
has a net spin, or angular momentum, in a particular direction. 

Since angular momentum can neither be created or destroyed., p. 9. Longo says “The 
new study uses 15,158 with redshifts <0.085 and obtains very similar results to the 
first with a signal exceeding 5o, corresponding to a probability ~2.5 x 10" 7 for 
occurring by chance.” In a slightly different version of the same article, Longo 
cites the study by lye and Sugai of the southern hemisphere: “lye and Sugai - lye 
and Sugai (1991) have published a catalog of spin orientations of galaxies in the 
southern Galactic hemisphere that contains 8287 spiral galaxies. Of these, 3118 
had R or L handedness about which both scanners agreed. I have analyzed their 
catalog using the sec- tor -15°<a<+45° and -60°< 5 <+5°, directly opposite that 
used above4. Redshifts of most of their galaxies were not measured, so only their 
(a, 5) were used. This gave an asymmetry +0.047± 0.029 with a preponderance of 
right-handed spirals in the southern Galactic hemisphere, in excellent agreement 
with the asymmetry |A| = 0.0695±0.0127 that I observe for the °<a<225° with a 
preponderance of left-handed spirals ( /abs/0904.2529). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

the universe must have come into existence in a spin. What set it 
spinning, though, and what is it spinning relative to? 581 

A spinning universe is obviously counter to both the Cosmological 
Principle (i.e., everything looks and acts the same in the universe) and the 
Copemican Principle (i.e., the Earth is neither special nor in a special 
place) but more in the realm of geocentric cosmology. As the author, Anil 
Ananthaswamy, sees the news, it is: 

“Fascinating - and heretical. The assumption of cosmic parity 
conservation is tied up with what is known as the cosmological 
principle: that wherever you are in the universe, and in whatever 
direction you look, things on average look the same. The 
universe does not tell left from right; in fact, it knows no special 
places or directions at all. As far as the philosophical bases of 
modem cosmology go, things don’t come more fundamental 
than that.” 582 

New Scientist's second article was prompted by the recent study of 
galaxy spin by by Lior Shamir of Lawrence Technological University in 
Michigan. He examined 250,000 spiral galaxies, more than ten times 
Longo’s sampling. 583 Shamir notes: “The observation is so strange that it’s 
difficult to interpret its meaning. A pattern in the structure of the universe 
at such a large scale is not something that we expect to see.” 

Knowing the implications of these astounding discoveries, 
Ananthaswamy is quick to stifle the geocentric implications, stating: 

Let’s start with what that does not mean: Earth is not in a special 
place. Although it might look as if we are ideally positioned to 
look along the universe’s unique spin axis, all of space expanded 
from just one infinitesimally small point at the big bang. The 
original spin axis has expanded with it, so wherever you are in 
the cosmos, it will be there too, pointing in the same direction. 584 

First, that Ananthaswamy feels he must make such a preemptive 
argument shows that he and his colleagues are very concerned about the 

581 “Galactic ‘axis of asymmetry’ threatens cosmic order,” New Scientist, August 

22, 2012, p. 2. 

582 “Original Spin: Was the universe born whirling?” New Scientist, October 12, 

2011, p. 2. 

583 Physics Letters B, 

584 “Original Spin: Was the universe born whirling?” op. cit., p. 3. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

geocentric interpretation. He even includes a diagram to dissuade the 
reader from considering that our Earthly position of observation is special 
(see below). The argument is specious, however. The fact that “wherever 
you are in the cosmos, the spin axis will be there too” simply means that 
the spin axis is universal, not local. 

There are other astounding facts in Longo’s data that puts Earth right 
in the middle of the spin axis, but which Ananthaswamy’s anti-geocentric 
interpretation totally misses. After Longo studied the northern hemisphere 
and saw there was a left-handed spin preferred by his sample of galaxies, 
he then studied the southern hemisphere and found that “stretching off as 
far as the telescope could see, along the same axis in the southern sky, 
there was a clear excess this time of right-handed spirals. It was the same 
effect, only in reverse.” Unfortunately, both Longo and New Scientist miss 
the meaning of this “asymmetry.” It is not only that “the universe has a net 
angular momentum” in its spin but that the preferred spin direction is not 
only centered on the Earth’s equinoxes (just as the CMB dipole), but is 
differentiated by the plane of the equinoxes. The fact that the northern 
hemisphere of the whole universe has most of its galaxies spinning left, 
and the southern hemisphere of the whole universe has most of its galaxies 
spinning right, is the same phenomena we experience with hurricanes 
spinning left in the Earth’s northern hemisphere while spinning right in the 
southern hemisphere. It is due to the Coriolis force, only this Coriolis force 
is not merely local. It is a universal Coriolis force caused by the rotation 
and oscillation of the universe around the Earth. 

Universal axis ©NewScientist 

Odd correlations in the rotations of galaxies could indicate 
that the universe was born spinning 

The spinning universe 
originated as a point 
in the big bang 

* Left-handed galaxy Right-handed galaxy 
• Alternative positions for Earth 

The universe - and its spin axis 
has since expanded, leaving 
the evidence for its spinning 
visible In the same 
direction wherever 
you are 

Looking in this direction you 
a preponderance of galaxies 
spinning to the left 

In this and any other direction, you 
see approximately equal numbers 
of left and right galaxies 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Some sources caught the implications of the reverse spin. 

DiscoveryNews notes: 

If the whole universe is rotating, then an excess number of 
galaxies on the opposite part of the sky, below the galactic plane, 
should be whirling in a clockwise direction. And indeed they are 
according to a separate 1991 survey of 8287 spiral galaxies in 
the southern galactic hemisphere. 

Galaxies spin, stars spin, and planets spin. So, why not the whole 
universe? The consequences of a spinning universe would be 
profound. The cornerstone of modem cosmology is that the 
universe is homogeneous and isotropic - it has no preferred 
orientation and looks the same in all directions. On the face of it, 
the claim of a spin axis would seem anti-Copemican. In other 
words, the universe has a preferred axis, which means there is 
indeed a special direction in space. A left-handed and right- 
handed imprint on the sky as reportedly revealed by galaxy 
rotation would imply the universe was rotating from the very 
beginning and retained an overwhelmingly strong angular 

This isn’t the first time astronomers claimed to have observed a 
carousel universe. The cosmic microwave background from the 
big bang had suspected anomalies that were once suggested as 
evidence of rotation, but were later dismissed as instrumental 
effects. This result might just be a statistical fluke. Or is it 
somehow biased because we are only looking at the local 
universe? What is very curious to me is that the Milky Way’s 
own spin axis roughly aligns to the universe’s purported spin 
axis within just a few degrees, as deduced from the two galaxy 
surveys. That seems very anti-Copemican too. It has also been 
used to bolster biblical creationist arguments that we are at the 
“center” of the universe. 585 

585 “Is the Universe Spinning?” Analysis by Ray Villard, July 8, 2011, 
See also, “Was the Universe bom spinning?” July 25, 2011, http://physicsworld. 
com/cws/article/news/201 l/jul/25/was-the-universe-born-spinning. In 1996, 
before any of the information was available about the CMB’s anisotropy or the 
preferred spin axis of galaxies, NASA answered a question concerning whether 
the universe rotated. Its response was: “As far as we know, the Universe is not 
rotating. The presence of rotation would induce a type of change in the Cosmic 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Distant Radio Sources Conf irm Non-Copernican Universe 

A paper written in 2012 by J. C. Jackson of Northumbria University 
in England indicates that distant radio sources 

show significant anisotropy, the smallest value of Qm being 
towards (1, b) = (253.9, 24.1)°, the largest in the opposite 
direction. This is close to the CMB dipole axis, but in the 
obverse sense. This is interpreted as meaning that the Universe is 
not spatially homogeneous on the largest scales, and is better 
represented at late times by a spherically symmetric model with 
a density enhancement at its centre. 

I report here a test of isotropy based upon the angular- 
size/redshift relationship, using ultra-compact radio sources as 
standard measuring rods; these objects have angular diameters in 
the milliarcsecond (mas) range, and linear sizes of order several 
parsecs. In fact the test reveals significant anisotropy, a tentative 
interpretation of which is that the Universe is not spatially 
homogeneous on the largest scales, and is better represented at 
late times by a spherically symmetric model with a density 
enhancement at its centre. Antoniou & Perivolaropoulos (2010) 
have already looked at Union2 Snla dataset in this context, 
which shows a similar anisotropy; my approach closely follows 
theirs. 586 

Tke CMB Displays a Small, Spherical Universe 

The second astounding piece of information to come out of the 
WMAP data is that the universe is most likely small and in the shape of a 
sphere. In remarking on the giant sphere that WMAP produced. Max 
Tegmark noted: “Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of 
radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center ,” 587 Added to this was 
the interpretation of his colleague, Angelica de Oliveira-Costa, who stated 

Microwave Background temperature which has not been observed. In addition, the 
presence of rotation would imply that locations along the axis of the rotation were 
somehow ‘special,’ which violates our understanding of relativity that the 
Universe appears the same regardless of the location of the observer.” 
( answers/961217a.html). 

586 “Ultra-compact radio sources and the isotropy and homogeneity of the 
Universe,” J. C. Jackson, July 3, 2012, arXiv:1207 



Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

that the cosmic quadrupole and octopole are both very planar and aligned, 
which according to the CERN correspondent reporting the interview 
means that the points “happen to fall on a great circle on the sky.” 588 In 
their original paper, Tegmark and Oliveira-Costa noted that “the 
quadrupole.. .and the octopole have almost all their power perpendicular to 
a common axis in space, as if some process has suppressed large scale 
power in the direction of the axis.” 589 From a geocentric perspective, this 
kind of evidence would naturally be understood as defining the axis upon 
which the universe rotates. Tegmark, et al., allow such an interpretation, 
since they add: 

How significant is this quadrupole-octopole alignment? As a 
simple definition of preferred axis [it] denotes the spherical 
harmonic coefficients of the map in a rotated coordinate 
system....if the CMB is an isotropic Gaussian random field, then 
a chance alignment this good requires a 1-in-62 fluke. 590 
Perhaps just as important is the following remark by the Tegmark 

What does this all mean? is difficult not to be intrigued by 
the similarities [of our findings] with what is expected in some 
non-standard [i.e., non Big Bang] models, for instance, ones 

588 A. de Oliveira-Costa, et al. 2004, Physical Review D 69 063516, as cited in 
Cern Courier, IOP Pub., Inc, 2005. The CERN team also discovered that the 
finding “does not agree with the expectation from inflation” [Big Bang] and “casts 
doubts on the cosmological interpretation of the lowest-E multipoles.. .and.. .the 
claim that the first stars formed very early in the history of the universe.” See also 
H. K. Eriksen, et al., Astrophysical Journal 605, 14, 2004. See also Oliveira- 
Costa’s “Topology of the Universe” in which a rectangular, cubic and toroidal 
universe is ruled out ( html). 

589 Max Tegmark, Angelica de Oliveira-Costa and Andrew J. S. Hamilton, “A 
high resolution foreground cleaned CMB map from WMAP,” Physical Rev. D, 
July 26, 2003, p. 13. 

590 Max Tegmark, et al., p. 14. In light of Tegmark’s axis, it should also be noted 
that evidence for the rotation of the universe was discovered in the early 1980s 
(Paul Birch, “Is the Universe Rotating?” Nature, vol. 298, 29 July 1982, pp 451- 
454; Mitchell M. Waldrop, “The Currents of Space,” Science, vol. 232, April 4, 
1986, p. 26). After examining 132 radio sources, Birch determined that the 
polarization angle translated into the universe rotating at a rate of 10" 13 radians per 
year. Although this rotation has nothing to do with the daily rotation advocated in 
the geocentric model, the rotation coincides with Tegmark’s findings of Earth 
being the center point of the universe. See also Yu Obukhov, “Gauge Theories of 
Fundamental Interactions,” 1990, Singapore, World Scientific. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

involving a flat “small Universe” with a compact topology and 
one of the three dimensions being relatively small. 591 

This “non-standard...flat small Universe with compact topology,” 
and, as noted above, the one with the “preferred axis” with odds of “ 1 -in- 
62 of being a fluke,” is precisely the one advocated by models of 
geocentric cosmology. 

Max Tegmark: "A sphere of radius IB.3 billion 
light-years with us at the center" 592 

In light of this startling data, perhaps Tegmark’s final co mm ent, is 
appropriate: “As so often in science when measurements are improved, 
WMAP has answered old questions and raised new ones.” 593 Or, as David 
Spergel stated in the same interview: “If the universe were finite, then this 

’ 91 Tegmark, etal., p. 14. 

’ 92 http://space. mit. edu/home/t egmark/wmap. html 
593 Tegmark, etal., p. 14. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

would rule out inflation and require something new.” 594 Although accurate, 
Spergel’s comment is quite an understatement. “Something new” means 
that all that has been taught about cosmology since the early part of the 
twentieth century, and perhaps going back as far as Isaac Newton’s infinite 
universe, is totally erroneous. In fact, Spergel and his colleagues have gone 
so far as to suggest that the small scale of the starry cosmos may be due to 
a “hall-of-mirrors” effect. Working alongside mathematician Jeffrey 
Weeks, New Scientist reports: 

...scientists announced tantalizing hints that the universe is 
actually relatively small, with a hall-of-mirrors illusion tricking 
us into thinking that space stretches on forever....Weeks and his 
colleagues, a team of astrophysicists in France, say the WMAP 
results suggest that the universe is not only small, but that space 
wraps back on itself in a bizarre way (Nature, vol. 425, p. 
593)....Effectively, the universe would be like a hall of mirrors, 
with the wraparound effect producing multiple images of 
everything inside. [Spergel adds]: “If we could prove that the 
universe was finite and small, that would be Earth-shattering. It 
would really change our view of the universe” 595 

George Ellis is much in favor of this type of universe since it would 
eliminate all the “infinities” that present theories produce. Moreover, he 
says that a small universe, “if it’s true, the relation of humanity to the 
universe is in a sense completely different.” He comments as follows: 

There’s one possibility.. .that I would want to mention here is the 
small universe hypothesis, and this is the idea that, in fact, the 
universe is not very large, since it may be that the universe is 
spatially closed, not on a scale bigger than the horizon but 
smaller than the horizon. If that was true, we would be seeing 
around the universe one time, ten times, twenty times, since the 
time of Kepler. Now to me this is a very, very interesting 
possibility because Einstein’s equations allow it. In fact, I did 
some simulations many years ago of this idea that maybe the 

594 Dennis Overbye, “Universe as Doughnut: New Data, New Debate,” The New 
York Times, March 11, 2003. Comments Overbye includes from other prominent 
scientists are: G. Hinshaw: “The fact that there appears to be an angular cutoff 
hints at a special distance scale in the universe”; George Smoot: “The basic idea is 
that God’s on a budget.” 

595 Hazel Muir, “Does the Universe Go On Forever,” New Scientist, October 11, 
2003, p. 6. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

universe is closed on a space-scale smaller than the Hubble 
scale, and we’re seeing the same galaxies many times over...and 
that would be an example of the universe which is comparable 
with observations but the philosophical relation of humanity to 
the universe is totally different because, if this was the case, we 
would be seeing our own galaxy at different places in the sky, 
and all of a sudden, the history of our own galaxy would become 
observational. We would be able to see our galaxy at different 
times....Em saying it’s a possibility and Em saying it should be 
looked for. All the possibilities should be looked for because if 
it’s true, the relation of humanity to the universe is in a sense 
completely different . One of the things it would do is it would 
knock out all those infinities because we would’ve seen 
everything there is. In fact, we would’ve seen everything there is 
multiple times. 596 

Regardless whether Ellis’ version of a small universe under Einstein’s 
equations is true or not, the fact remains that Ellis realizes how the 
smallness effects man’s perception of himself. A small universe is, 
philosophically speaking, much more geo-centered than a large and/or 
infinite universe. 

It is little wonder that Janna Levin, commenting on the WMAP data 
in the same interview, stated: 

I suspect every last one of us would be flabbergasted if the 
universe was so small....I tried on the idea that we were really 
and truly seeing the finite extent of space and I was filled with 
dread. But Em enjoying it too. 597 

Perhaps, as we noted earlier, Ms. Levin felt the same “dread” that 
Edwin Hubble and Stephen Hawking experienced when they realized their 
data were showing that the Earth was in the center of a small universe. 
Perhaps the equivocation between “dread” and “joy” is why Ms. Levin 
also wrote a paper seeking to downplay the inevitable geocentric 
interpretations of the WMAP data, but still finds herself having to admit 
the next best thing: 

596 Interview of George F. R. Ellis for the movie, The Principle , October 2011, 
reel ref. 1:15:23.0. 

597 Dennis Overbye, “Universe as Doughnut: New Data, New Debate,” The New 
York Times, March 11, 2003. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Copernicus realized that we are not at the center of the Universe. 
A universe made finite by topological identifications introduces 
a new Copernican consideration: while we may not be at the 
geometric centre of the Universe, some galaxy could be. A finite 
universe also picks out a preferred frame: the frame in which the 
universe is smallest. Although we are not likely to be at the 
centre of the Universe, we must live in the preferred frame (if we 
are at rest with respect to the cosmological expansion). 598 

Although many of the scientists who were asked to comment on the 
Tegmark analysis opined that a doughnut-shaped universe may be the best 
model to explain the new data, George Efstathiou of Cambridge 
University, who has worked very closely with Tegmark, recently 
submitted a paper on the WMAP and concluded that “a sphere” would be 
the most appropriate model to describe it, 599 which is, of course, the 
precise shape of a geocentric universe. 

TkeC orrelation between Stoneken g'c an d tke CMB 

598 J. D. Barrow and J. Levin, “The Copernican principle in compact space- 
times,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society’, December 2003, vol. 
346, no. 2, pp. 615-618(4). Still working on the principle that the universe is both 
isotropic and homogeneous. Levin concludes her abstract with: “We show that the 
preferred topological frame must also be the comoving frame in a homogeneous 
and isotropic cosmological space-time.” By the words “comoving frame” is 
meant that she will not consider a geostatic solution to the data, even though the 
data allows such an interpretation. 

599 M. Tegmark and G. Efstathiou, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical 
Society, 281, 1297, 1996. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Since the 23.5 angle is foundational to the alignment of the stars, the 
CMB and the Earth, do any of the ancient cosmologies recognize this 
relationship? Surprisingly enough, along these lines of inquiry, the 
mystery behind Stonehenge may have been solved. Jonathan Morris has 
discovered that Stonehenge is actually an ancient model of a geocentric 
universe. 600 According to Morris, 

Diodorus Siculus tells us that a Geocentric model (world fixed 
with heavens revolving above) was discovered long before 
Roman records began. Stonehenge fits Diodorus’s description. 

Its name fits Diodorus’s description. We also know that Northern 
Europeans often travelled to Britain in Neolithic Times. Is it 
possible that the North of Europe knew the nature of the heavens 
thousands of years before Aristotle and Ptolemy? 601 

Man standing at Stonehenge, England on 51? latitude 

600 See 

601 Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian, who wrote between 60 and 30 BC, and 
in particular is his comprehensive history Bibliotheca Historica. Jerome writes of 
him as , “Diodorus of Sicily, a writer of Greek history, became illustrious.” The 
Bibliotheca Historica consisted of forty books, of which books 1-5 and 11-20 
survive, with fragments of the the lost books being preserved in Photius and the 
excerpts of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Stonehenge aligned with the 23.5? ecliptic 

The Stars and 


„ ¥ * * * ¥ „ 

















f' \ 




' ' ! 









— " 














¥ ¥ 

* ¥ 4 ¥ * 

Stonehenge pillars representing the stars 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Stonehenge aligned with solar axes 

Stonehenge aligned with universe's CMB axis 602 

602 See CDROM for animation of Stonehenge and the CMB congelation. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Gamma-Ray Bursts an d “Tke Copernican Dil crmna 

Oxford seems to be the place to go to discover the current 
cosmological evidence supporting geocentrism. On this occasion it comes 

from Oxford University Press who recently 
published a book titled: The Biggest Bangs: 
The Mystery: of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most 
Violent Explosions in the Universe, written 
by astrophysicist Jonathan I. Katz of 
Washington University, a scientist who 
admits of no partiality toward a geocentric 
universe yet includes a chapter titled The 
Copernican Dilemma. Obviously, the title 
indicates he has found disturbing evidence 
that puts the Copernican theory in question. 
Katz’s studies have found that, when all the 
known gamma-ray bursts are calculated and catalogued, they show Earth 
to be in the center of it all. Ele writes: 

The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that 
the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere 
or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely 
contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But 
Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred 
position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar 
system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. 
There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the 
distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive 
enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, 
then they should not be isotropic on the sky, contrary to 
observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the Nk S' 

3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the 
Copernican dilemma. 603 

Notice the clear geocentric language the author uses, that is, he sees 
in his telescope a sphere or spherical shell with us at the center. 604 

603 Jonathan I. Katz, The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, The 
Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, 2002, pp. 90-91. The photo and caption 
to the left is taken, word-for-word, from the Encyclopedia of Astronomy, 2004, p. 

604 Although our book will often refer to Earth as the center of the universe, this 
geocentric view is distinct from other views which hold that the Milky Way 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

“Isotropic” means that the gamma-ray bursts are the same in all directions 
from Earth. 605 Katz knows the implications of his discovery since he 
immediately makes reference to the contradictions his findings have 
against the Copemican theory. Since Katz, being a modem astrophysicist, 
is a believer in the Big Bang theory and considers Earth as a speck of dust 
on one of the outer rims of the universe, we see him struggling to free 
himself from the implications of his evidence as he writes: “There is no 
reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray 

galaxy, not Earth, is the center of the universe, a view espoused, for example, by 
astrophysicist D. Russell Humphreys in “Our galaxy is the center of the universe, 
quantized-redshifts show,” Technical Journal 16 (2): 95-104; and Starlight and 
Time, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994. Another such advocate is Robert V. 
Gentry in “Creation’s Tiny Mystery,” 3rd edition. Earth Science Associates, 
Knoxville, TN, pp. 287-290, 1992; and Modern Physics Letters A 12 (37): 2919- 
2925, 1997. Both Humphreys and Gentry posit that the Earth has diurnal and 
translational motion ( i.e ., that the Earth both spins on an axis and revolves around 
the sun). Another geocentric view is that of Catholic Fernand Crombette (1880- 
1970). He held that the Earth, although centrally located in the universe, rotates on 
an axis each 24-hours. These views will be critiqued in volume II of this series. 
Suffice it to say for now that the geocentric view espoused in Galileo Was Wrong: 
The Church Was Right: The Evidence from Modern Science is actually a geostatic 
view, and follows the Papal and Sacred Congregation decrees of 1616, 1633 and 
1664, which declare that Earth possess neither diurnal or translational motion, and 
is, in fact, motionless in the center of the universe. 

605 Here it is necessary to distinguish between isotropic and homogeneous. 
Isotropic refers to an environment that looks the same in all directions, excluding 
the observer’s location. For example, if an observer is perched on top of a 
symmetrical sand hill in the middle of a flat desert, as he looks around the whole 
circumference of his view, he sees the same grade of hill approaching him, as well 
as a vast flat desert in all directions. Homogeneous refers to an environment that 
appears the same in all locations, but also includes the observer’s location. In this 
case, the observer is not seated on a sand hill but on the flat desert itself, and as he 
looks out he sees a flat desert in all directions, including his seated position. 
Current cosmology, either Big Bang or Steady-State (non Earth-centered 
cosmologies) holds, with few exceptions, that the universe is both isotropic and 
homogeneous. As Edwin Hubble described it: “There must be no favoured 
location in the universe, no center, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. 
And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist postulates spatial isotropy 
and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the universe must be 
pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions” ( The Observational Approach 
to Cosmology’, p. 54). If the universe is isotropic but inhomogeneous, it allows for 
an Earth-centered cosmology, since only from an isotropic center can the universe 
appear the same in all directions, but appear different when not observed from the 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

bursts,” but he then admits twice that such a position would be contrary to 
observation. In other words, he can’t believe his own eyes since obviously 
he has been so conditioned to see just the opposite. Katz continues: 

To this day, after the detection of several thousand bursts, and 
despite earnest efforts to show the contrary, no deviation from a 
uniform random distribution (isotropy) in the directions of 
gamma-ray bursts on the sky has ever been convincingly 
demonstrated. 606 

As Katz goes on to explain, the “Copemican dilemma” for 
astronomers is that they are required to explain why there are no faint 
gamma-ray bursts , since, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe is 
old and expansive. If so, then more distant bursts should register more 
faintly when compared to closer bursts. One theory proposes that the 
Milky Way is surrounded by a halo of Dark Matter that emits gamma-rays, 
but this is pure speculation. 

No one has proven that Dark Matter actually exists, much less 
produces gamma rays. A second theory holds that gamma-ray bursts 

606 Jonathan I. Katz, The Biggest Bangs: p. 84. A recent article in Sky and 
Telescope supported this interpretation: ‘“There’s this myth that gamma-ray bursts 
are chaotic and unpredictable.. .but that’s not true.’ In fact GRB’s might even be 
used as ‘standard candles’ with which to measure cosmic distances” (Joshua Roth, 
“Gamma-Ray Bursts Next Door,” Sk}’ and Telescope, January 9, 2002). Gamma- 
ray bursts are equivalent to 10 45 watts of energy, which is over a million trillion 
times as powerful as the sun. The bursts occur at the rate of about one per day, but 
are fast-fading and random, never occurring in the same place twice. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

originated from distances of ten billion light years, near the edge of the 
observable universe, and thus would be uniformly distributed as the rays 
approached Earth. But this would require the gamma-ray sources to have 
incredible energy in order to last long enough to reach Earth. Another 
problem was that a super burst appeared in the Large Magellanic Cloud in 
1979, a satellite of the Milky Way and thus very close to Earth. Not 
surprisingly, the “large distance” theory was discarded as well. 

Expected Observed 

After citing some experiments designed to answer the Copemican 
dilemma, 607 the author admits: 

No longer could astronomers hope that the Copemican dilemma 
would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand, and 
their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a 
spherically symmetric distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources, 
and this distribution has an outer edge. Beyond this edge the 
density of burst sources decreases to insignificance. 608 

The implications of this admission are quite significant. Having no 
worthy explanation for the isotropic distribution of gamma-ray bursts, the 
astrophysicist is forced to admit one of the major planks of geocentric 
cosmology - that Earth is at the center of the forces we see in the universe. 

607 In particular, the BATSE (Burst and Transient Source Experiment) launched in 
1991, but again, “the deficiency of faith bursts, compared to the expected -3/2 
power law, is unquestionable (p. 109)....Through its 9-year life BATSE detected 
nearly 3000 bursts, and only reconfirmed these conclusions with ever-increasing 
accuracy” (p. 111). 

608 The Biggest Bangs, p. 111. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Interestingly enough, Katz had opened the chapter reminding the reader 

Mikolay Kopemik, the Polish astronomer also known by his 
Latin name Nicolaus Copernicus, established that Earth and the 
planets revolve around the Sun. The importance of Copernicus’s 
ideas was both philosophical and scientific: Man is not at the 
center of the universe, but is only an insignificant spectator, 
viewing its fireworks from somewhere in the bleachers....In 
modem times this has been elevated into the cosmological 
principle, which states that, if averaged over a sufficiently large 
region, the properties of the universe are the same everywhere; 
our neighborhood is completely ordinary and unremarkable. We 
are not special, and our home is not special, either. This is one of 
the foundations of nearly all modem cosmologies. 609 

Thus we see that Katz himself recognizes the implications of his own 
studies. He knows that gamma-ray bursts demolish the cosmological 
principle. Perhaps man is at the center of the universe; perhaps he is 
special and not merely an insignificant spectator but, in fact, is at the hub 
of all that goes on around him. If that is the case, we wonder if Katz, since 
he, too, is a man made in the image of God, wondered, even for a few 
fleeting minutes, whether these gamma-ray bursts meant that Earth was 
not a product of time and chance but, indeed, was placed in a very special 
place by its Creator. 

2704 BATSE Gamma-Ray Bursts 

Fluertce. 50-30Q keV (ergs cm'') 

Gamma-ray bursts come from all directions. 

609 The Biggest Bangs, p. 82. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

We wonder if Katz would ever consider, since gamma-rays are high 
energy photons, 610 and photons are nothing but packages of light, that 
gamma-rays are one of the remnants of the first day of creation in which 
God, after having already created the heaven and the Earth (Genesis 1:1-2) 
said, ‘Let there be light’ (Genesis 1:3), thus distributing light uniformly 
around the already existing Earth? Would he ever consider that God, 
knowing that man would be intensely curious about where he is positioned 
in the universe in relation to everything else, left sign posts all throughout 
the starry skies saying: “Here, O man, is the clue to your origin and your 
destiny”! Since Katz does not mention God or Genesis in his book, we will 
never know where his private thoughts led him, but it is almost a certainty 
that the very foundation of his life was shaken when he discovered that the 
Earth was at the center point of photon disbursement. 

Before he lowers the boom of gamma-ray evidence on unsuspecting 
Copernicans, Katz tries to offer some solace by appealing to the 
cosmological principle, which is, he says, supported by studies of the 
cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the popularized relic of 
the so-called “Big Bang.” 611 But we wonder how Katz can be so confident 
of his interpretation of the CMB’s isotropy when he reveals just a few 
paragraphs later that gamma-ray bursts have the same isotropy. For the 
isotropy of the former, Katz believes he has an ally in the cosmological 
principle and Copemican theory, but the isotropy of the latter, he admits, 
speaks against both. Why the contradiction? Because Katz is, without 
proof, taking for granted the main tenet of the cosmological principle, that 
is, a Big Bang occurred 13.5 billion years ago. In such a universe, Katz 
believes he can explain the CMB’s isotropy as the result of its being 
evenly distributed throughout the whole universe, as opposed to gamma- 
ray bursts that, Katz realizes, have isotropic distribution only to a certain 
point, and then it suddenly disappears altogether. But how does Katz know 
that the isotropy of the CMB is situated any differently than the isotropy of 
the gamma-ray bursts? He doesn’t, and neither does he know the 
origination of the 2.728° Kelvin CMB radiation. The only thing he knows 
is that the CMB is found in isotropic distribution around the Earth, the 

610 According to Katz’s glossary, a Gamma ray is “an electromagnetic radiation 
whose photons have energies greater than about 100,000 eV. Sometimes lower- 
energy photons (often as low as 10,000 eV) are also called gamma rays, 
overlapping the definition of X rays...” 

611 Katz says it is so called because “distances of billions of light-years are called 
cosmological, because they include the entire universe, and light from these 
remote regions takes so long to reach us that it was emitted when the universe was 
significantly younger than it is now and had different properties” (p. 24). What the 
different properties are Katz does not tell us. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

same as gamma-ray bursts. If the Big Bang were not influencing him, the 
CMB isotropy should have led Katz to the same conclusion to which he 
arrived for gamma-ray bursts - that Earth is in the center of it all. 

► Quasars 

The density of 
quasars increases 
outwards from the 
Earth. In this plot 
(which has empty 
quadrants where 
quasars are hard 
to find among the 
stars of the Milky 
Way) the Earth is 
at the center, in a 
nearly blank area. 
The density of 
quasars decreases 
after about 
It billion l.y., into 
the 'dark ages' 
before they had 

Quasars: Concentric Spheres around tke Eartk 

About ten years prior to the discovery of gamma-ray bursts, 
astronomers stumbled upon another unique phenomenon in the universe. 
Radio telescopes employed in the 1960s found radio waves being 
transmitted by objects outside the solar system. Optical telescopes were 
then pointed in the same direction. They found faint points of light, which 
they named “quasi-stellar radio sources,” soon shortened to “quasars.” 

Quasars presented a problem soon after 
their discovery since, according to the popular 
theory wherein redshift is understood as 
representing a recessional velocity, the quasars 
would have to be moving away from Earth at 
tremendous speeds, some between 15% and 
95% of the speed of light. If so, they were then 
thought to be on the outer edges of the known 
universe, which then meant, if we are able to 
see their light, they must be putting out 
tremendous amounts of energy, starting at about 
a thousand times the luminosity of a galaxy. Not 
only that, but since any given quasar will vary 
in brightness, this means that the lower ebb of the luminosity translated 
into the quasar being an amazingly small object. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Astrophysicist Yatendra P. Varshni did extensive work on the 
spectra of quasars. In 1975 he catalogued 384 quasars between redshift of 
0.2 and 3.53 and, amazingly, found that they were formed in 57 separate 
groupings of concentric spheres around the Earth. He made the following 
startling conclusion: 

...the quasars in the 57 groups...are arranged on 57 spherical 
shells with the Earth as the center....The cosmological 
interpretation of the redshift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet 
another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of 
the universe. 612 

Varshni first based his calculations on the spectra of the quasars and then 
did a second test on their actual redshifts. Both tests produced the same 
results. Varshni concludes that if his analysis is correct for quasars, then... 

The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement 
of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the 
Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another 
galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will 
have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the 
Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. 
Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity 
must be abandoned for cosmological purposes. 613 

612 Varshni’s data, as cited in “The Red Shift Hypothesis for Quasars: Is the Earth 
the Center of the Universe?” Astrophysics and Space Science , 43: (1), (1976), p. 3. 
Although Varshni was firm on his discovery, he did leave room for an alternative 
explanation: “We are essentially left with only one possibility...the cosmological 
redshift interpretation. However, before we accept such an unaesthetic possibility, 
we must raise the question: Are the redshifts real? We wish to point out that we 
have proposed an alternative explanation of the spectra of quasars (Varshni, 1973, 
1974, 1975; Menzel, 1970; Varshni and Lam, 1974) which is based on sound 
physical principles, does not require any redshifts, and has no basic difficulty.” 
Varshni’s alternative proposal was that the spectral lines were due to laser action 
in certain atomic species in the expanding envelope of a star (Astrophysics and 
Space Science, 37, LI, (1975)). 

613 Astrophysics and Space Science, 43: (1) (1976), p. 8. Varshni cites a counter¬ 
explanation and shows its weakness: “Quasars may be arranged like atoms in a 
crystal lattice, with the Earth being either at an empty lattice site or at a suitable 
interstitial site. Should that be the case, one would expect some pattern or 
regularity in the directions of quasars belonging to a certain group. No such 
evidence is found and this possibility must also be abandoned” (ibid.). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

The 2dF Quasar Redshift Survey 

Concentric quasar distribution with void area at center 

Varshni calculated the odds against such an arrangement and found: 

From the multiplicative law...the probability of these 57 sets of 
coincidences occurring in this system of 384 QSOs is ~ 3 x 10 85 . 

We hope this number will be convincing evidence that the 
coincidences are real and cannot be attributed to chance. 

Soon after Varshni’s work, astronomers found over 20,000 quasars, 
and none of them altered Varshni’s original results. In fact, they refer to it 
as the “quasar distribution problem.” Of course, it’s only a problem 
because, as Varshni was so bold to say, it puts a stake into the heart of the 
Copemican principle, as well as challenging the very tenets of the most 
prestigious work of science to date - Einstein’s theory of Relativity. The 
other “problem,” of course, is that since these quasars are distributed 
around Earth with such specific periodicity, this means that Earth is 
situated in a quasar-free hole, and that no other such “holes” exist 
anywhere else in the universe. Moreover, even if one were to dispute 
Varshni’s findings by positing an alternative explanation for red-shift ( e.g ., 
the belief that red-shift does not measure distance), the 57 concentric 
groupings of quasars will appear nonetheless when put in terms of “phase 
space,” which, in astrophysics, is a multidimensional view of the sky 
utilizing Cartesian dimensions coupled with time and momentum to plot 
positions on a map. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

A year after Varshni’s 1976 paper, C. B. Stephenson attempted to 
explain the startling findings by suggesting that the Big Bang produced 
periodic bands of quasars that spread out over time. 614 Varshni wrote back 
to the same periodical a few months later critiquing Stephenson’s 
proposal, saying: 

Instead of having Earth at the center, now we have to assume 
that the Universe evolved in fits and starts of quasar production. 

The concept of preferred epochs for quasar production is hardly 
any more aesthetic than that of a preferred position for the 
Earth.” 615 

Earth at the center of quasar distribution 

614 Astrophysics and Space Science, 51, 117-119 (1977). 

615 Astrophysics and Space Science, 51, 121, 1977. Varshni’s only other published 
criticism came from R. Weymann, T. Boronson and J. Scargle, who claimed that 
Varshni overestimated the significance of the clustering of quasar redshifts by 
many magnitudes {Astrophysics and Space Science, 53, 265, 1978). Varshni 
responded in an article titled “Chance Coincidences and the So-Called Redshift 
Systems in the Absorption Spectrum of PKS 0237-23,” stating: “It is shown that 
the number of redshift systems based on C IV doublets, proposed by Boronson, et 
al (1978) in the absorption spectrum of the quasar PKS 0237-23, is significantly 
different from that which would be expected from chance coincidences. 
Consequently, these systems and their z-values appear to be devoid of any 
physical significance” {Astrophysics and Space Science, 74, 3, 1981). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Not only does Varshni’s evidence of symmetrical spheres challenge 
the prevailing cosmological principle, but as is the case with gamma-ray 
bursts, another problem with quasars for modem cosmology is that the 
distances they are assumed to be from Earth in the Einstein universe 
requires them to put out so much energy in order to match their luminosity 
(at least 10,000 times the combined energy of Milky Way galaxy), that 
such energy is impossible to account for under current physical laws. Not 
only that, but putting quasars at such large distances would require them, 
under the current hypothesis of an expanding universe, to be moving away 
from Earth at speeds faster than the speed of light - an obvious 
contradiction to Einstein’s theory (although some attempt to avoid this 
problem by claiming that as the quasar moves it “creates space,” or that 
Einstein’s limitations only apply to the speed of “information” and not to 
the speed of light). As one author put it: 

When quasars were first discovered in the nineteen-sixties, they 
confronted astronomers and astrophysicists with an acute 
dilemma: If their enormous redshifts truly represented distance, 
nothing known in physics could explain their source of energy. 
Indeed, the very existence of such a compact but colossal source 
of energy seemed for a time to challenge the known body of 
physical principles, and a variety of fanciful notions like the 
“white hole” hypothesis were seriously considered in some 
quarters. 616 

Perhaps getting wind of Varshni’s results, in the same year a team of 
astronomers from California Institute of Technology led by Vera C. 
Rubin set out to disprove the geo- or galacto-centric findings. That they 
may have been motivated to refute Varshni’s findings is suggested by one 
conspicuous comment in their report reflecting the possible upsetting of 
their evidence: “Hopefully, it will not force a return to the pre-Copemican 
view of a hierarchy of motions whose sum is zero at the Sun.” 617 The team 

616 Mosaic, 9:18-27, May-June 1978. NB: A white hole is the theoretical porthole 
by which energy from another universe can be given to a quasar. 

617 Vera C. Rubin, Norbert Thonnard and W. Kent Ford, Jr., “Motion of the 
Galaxy and the Local Group determined from the velocity anisotropy of distant Sc 
I galaxies,” The Astronomical Journal, vol. 81, No. 9, Sept. 1976, p. 735. In 
actuality, the “pre-Copernican” would have the “sum is zero” at the Earth, not the 
Sun. In any case, Rubin preferred a velocity for the Sun at 600 km/sec ± 125 
km/sec and a velocity of the Milky Way of 425 km/sec ± 125 km/sec. The full 
paragraph reads: “If experiments underway or planned confirm the high degree of 
isotropy of the 2.7-K background radiation, and optical studies confirm a motion 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

set out to prove that the sum total of motions in 
the universe did not add up to zero in our local 
system, for a null sum would mean that the 
Earth-based observer was not in motion. Try as 
they may, the team was not able to rule out a null 
sum pointing to a geocentric universe. Within 
the allowable margin of error, they admitted that 
one possible solution to their findings was that 
all the motions in the galactic plane cancel out 
each other. Although they themselves advanced 
the view that the Sun and Galaxy were moving, 
the team was honest enough to conclude that 
they had no proof for this assertion. 

Another study conducted in 1976 by Paul Schechter of the Steward 
Observatory analyzed the data of Rubin’s team and sought to determine 
whether the results could be controverted, but found they could not. 
Schechter found the same canceling of galactic motion centered on the 
Earth-based observer as did the Rubin team. 618 

of the Sun, V > 300 km/sec, then the resolution of this conflict should enhance our 
knowledge both of the early history of the Universe and of the motions of 
galaxies, r ~ 100 Mpc. Hopefully, it will not force a return to the pre-Copernican 
view of a hierarchy of motions whose sum is zero at the Sun.” In their conclusion 
they admit: “This conflict remains unresolved” (ibid., p. 736). Other clues to their 
motivation appear in various places: “If our Galaxy is at rest, values of AF G m will 
be distributed at random for galaxies across the sky. However, if our Galaxy is 
moving, galaxies in the direction of the apex will have negative values of Vq - Vh 
in the mean” (ibid., p. 722). The team states that “The overriding 
that...the anisotropy persists, and in such a fashion that the most acceptable 
explanation is a motion of our Galaxy,” yet admits that there are “A variety of 
solutions” (ibid., p. 722) and “this conclusion puts such great weight on the few 
nearer galaxies that we choose to discuss the other alternatives as well” (ibid., p. 
728), and then they are forced to make a preference: “Employing Occam’s razor, 
we reject this hypothesis [a stationary Milky Way] in favor of the simpler one of a 
motion of the observer” [a moving solar system]. In addition, they admit: “If our 
Galaxy is at rest, then diameters of apex and antapex galaxies will be equal when 
diameters are formed from the galactocentric velocities. Alternately, if the Galaxy 
and the Local Group have a motion, the galaxy diameters will be equal....As can 
be seen, the rms errors of the diameters are too large to distinguish between the 
two cases” (ibid., p. 730). Again, “While we prefer to interpret out results in terms 
of galactic motion, we admit the possibility that some fraction of the observed 
effect could arise from magnitude errors” (ibid., p. 733). 

618 Paul L. Schechter, “On the Solar Motion with Respect to External Galaxies,” 
Astronomical Journal, vol. 82, August 1977, pp. 569-576. Schechter’s abstract 
reads: “The Scl galaxy data by Rubin, Ford.. .have been examined to determine 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Not only does the new scientific evidence show us that Earth is in the 
center of these heavenly bodies, it may also require us to accept that the 
universe is much smaller than Big Bang hypothesizers have led us to 
believe. Note this admission from the previous author: 

On the other hand, if the redshifts displayed by the object were 
false indicators of recession velocity, then the sources could be 
nearby and the problem of the energy source would go away. But 
the implications of this explanation were even more horrifying to 
astronomers. If some entirely u nk nown physical mechanism 
could mimic the Doppler displacement of the emission lines of a 
receding object, then the whole concept of an expanding 
universe would be thrown into question; the Hubble scale of 
cosmic distances an essential tool for both astronomers and 
cosmologists would have to be discarded. 619 

Not only does Varshni’s evidence compel him to dismiss Einstein’s 
Relativity, but Edwin Hubble’s theory that the universe is expanding is 

whether the accuracy of the solar motion derived from anisotropy in the redshift- 
magnitude diagram can be substantially improved by the application of the 
‘diameter correction’ employed by Rubin et al. It is found that it cannot. Analysis 
of a sample of nearby bright galaxies gives a solution for the solar motion with 
three times the formal accuracy obtained with the Scl sample, but with a possible 
systematic error arising from the motion of the sample galaxies toward the Virgo 
cluster.” Rubin likewise admitted that evidence from James Peebles (Princeton, 
1976) indicated “a component of motion toward Virgo” but that Rubin’s showed 
“a component.. .away from the Virgo direction,” while data from Sandage and 
Tammann (1975a, 1975b) “does not support the observed anisotropy” that the 
Rubin team saw (Rubin, op. cit., p. 733). The practical ramifications of Rubin’s 
inability to confirm her results is demonstrated in the opposing vectors touted by 
other astronomers in the same decade. Abell, for example, in Exploration of the 
Universe, asserts that we are moving toward the constellation Lyra at 20 km/sec, 
while Muller in Scientific American (May, 1978, p. 65) claims we are heading 
toward Leo at 400 km/sec, while Rubin has us moving “orthogonal to the Virgo 
cluster,” which would be toward Gemini or Taurus. In a study by Smoot, 
Gorenstein and Muller, the 600 km/sec velocity [of Rubin] was “almost at right 
angles to the velocity with respect to the background” (Michael Rowan-Robinson, 
“Ether drift detected at last,” Nature, Vol. 270, November 3, 1977, p. 9). 
Obviously, these contradicting results make the search for a movement of the 
Earth an exercise in futility. See also: Richard Warburton and John Goodkind, 
“The Search for Evidence of a Preferred Reference Frame,” Astrophysical 
Journal, vol. 206, Sept. 1976, pp. 881-886. 

619 Mosaic, 9:18-27, May-June 1978. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

also suspect. Varshni’s astounding evidence has also been confirmed by 
other astrophysicists, with even more extensive studies. The Ukrainian 
team of N. A. Zhuck, V. V. Moroz, A. A. Varaksin, who examined 23,760 
quasars, confirm the following: 

Regularity in quasar allocation.. .revealing that the quasars are 
grouped in thin walls of meshes [with] quasars spatial 
distribution in spherical and Cartesian coordinates... quasars 
have averages of distribution, root-mean-square diversion and 
correlation factors, typical for uniform distribution of random 
quantities; in smaller gauges the quasars are grouped in thin 
walls of meshes.... It is impossible to term these results, and the 
results of other similar investigations, as ordinary accidental 
coincidence. Obviously we have the facts confirming that the 
quasars are distributed uniformly in the universe.. , 620 

They conclude that the “quasars’ allocation in meshes correlates with 
galaxy allocation,” which means that the same spherical groupings noticed 
in quasars are also true for galaxies (which we will address in our next 
section). 621 Additionally, their evidence brings them to the same 
conclusion as Varshni’s in the discovery of the distribution of his quasars. 
The Ukrainian team states that their result... 

...confirms the concept of the stationary inconvertible universe 
and to reject [the] concept [of a] dynamic dilating universe 
which [was] erroneously formed in the XXth century and taking 

620 “Quasars and the Large Scale Structure of the Universe,” N. A. Zhuck, V. V. 
Moroz, A. A. Varaksin, Spacetime and Substance, International Physical Journal, 
Ukraine, Vol. 2, No. 5 (10) 2001, p. 193, 196. The Zhuck team go on to say that 
“...meshes in which walls the quasars are concentrated not only change in size, 
but also that [which] is most important, [they] are deformed (are flattened) 
approaching the universe boundary that cardinally contradicts the theory of the 
explosion | i.e., the Big Bang] which is typical of the homogeneous expansion of a 
substance and, accordingly, proportional expansion of the sizes of the indicated 
meshes” (NB: I have added words in brackets, since the translation from Russian 
is rather choppy in certain instances). 

621 They write: “It is necessary to note, that in 1971 Karlsson has found out for the 
first time a cyclic change of a spectral radiant density of quasars proportional 
argument 1/2(1+ z), where z is the red bias of their spectmms. Such allocation of 
quasars correlates with allocation of galaxies forming in the universe 
homogeneous thin-walled aggregations as meshes” (p. 206). Karlsson will also be 
mentioned in our next section on Galaxies. The reference is “Possible 
discretization of quasar redshift,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13:333 (1971). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

a beginning from a so-called Big Bang....Such a model is based 
on the non-steady solutions of the Einsteinian equations obtained 
by Soviet geophysicist and mathematician Friedmann at the 
beginning of the 1920s and the dynamics of the exploding 
commencement...advanced by American physicist Gamov at the 
end of the 1940s. 622 

We should pause to note, as much as we cite the works of Varshni, 
Zhuck and others in showing the centrality of Earth in relation to the 
quantized distribution of quasars, we are not by any means adopting 
anyone’s opinion that the quasars are billions of light-years from Earth. 
The whole question of determining the distance of celestial objects is an 
inexact science, which we will address later in this book. Presently, the 
matter of whether quasar redshifts are intrinsic (that is, due to the nature of 
the object emitting the radiation, or even from the radiation’s loss of 
energy) or cosmological (that is, due to the great distance quasars are said 
to be from Earth), is a hotly debated topic. 62 ’ Regardless of the outcome, 

622 Ibid., p. 202. The Zhuck team adds that the redshift does not necessarily have 
to be interpreted as “the expansion of the universe,” but as “the dissipation of the 
energy of light when it spreads at great distances.” In another place: “The analysis 
of interaction of light with the universe has shown that gravitational potential (-c 2 ) 
acts on it, giving power loss and, as a corollary, change frequency v in relation to 
initial v 0 under the law v = v Q e ~ r,Ro The given law completely permits [the] 
photometer paradox, explains the nature of red bias in spectrums of radiation of 
other galaxies without engaging a Doppler effect and gives a new formula of 
definition of distance up to galaxies L = R 0 In (1 + z), where z is the parameter of 
red bias in light frequency....The law completely explains the nature, numerical 
performances and character of allocation of background microwave radiation. 
Actually, it is not a relic of the Big Bang [but] aggregate radiation of all radiants 
of electromagnetic radiation (star, galaxies, etc.) of the universe...the light, when 
spreading in space, loses its energy since the light is permanently forced to break 
away from [the] gravitating masses behind” (pp. 205-207). Zhuck adds that this 
also answers Olber’s paradox: “The law (v = v Q e l/Ro ) has been completely proved 
by observations.. .by the missing of bright luminescence of the sky at night 
(contrary to a known photometer paradox of classical physics),” p. 209. (The 
reference to Friedmann appears in “Uber die Krummung des Raumes,” Ztschr. 
Phys., 10:377-386, 1922 and 21:332-336, 1922; to Gamov in Physical Review, 
70:572-573, 1946). 

623 There has been an ongoing debate whether the redshift of quasars is intrinsic 
(that is, due to the nature of the quasar or the nature of the emitted radiation - a 
view proposed by William Tifft) or cosmological (due to the great distance 
quasars might be from Earth). Fred Floyle and Geoffrey Burbidge claim that the 
“Compton catastrophe” disallowed the cosmological origin of quasar redshift, but 
this was supposedly answered by Ludwig Woltjer (see Katz: The Biggest Bangs, 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

however, identical to gamma-ray bursts, quasars exhibit the same type of 
quantized and spherical distribution in space, having Earth as the center 
point. So for now, we can appeal to the findings of the above named 
astronomers simply because the spherical proportions of quasar 
distribution having Earth as the center remain the same whether the 
quasars are near or far away. 

Along these lines, astronomer Halton Arp has ample evidence in his 
two books positing that the Big Bang interpretation of redshift (i.e., 
redshift = distance) is fallacious. 624 Nevertheless, Arp’s alternative still 
recognizes the obvious periodicity of cosmic redshifts and classifies them 
as “apparent” velocities for the sake of common nomenclature. Among his 
many proofs, Aip begins with the observational evidence from Burbidge 
and Karlsson: 

In 1967 Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge pointed out the 
existence of some redshifts in quasars which seem to be 
preferred (particularly z = 1.95). In 1971 K. G. Karlsson showed 
that these, and later observed redshifts, obeyed the mathematical 
formula (1 + z 2 )/(l + Zi) = 1.23 (where z 2 is next higher redshift 
from zi). This gives the observed quasar redshift periodicities of: 
z = 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96. In my opinion this is one 

pp. 44-45). D. Basil in “The Hubble Relation for a Comprehensive Sample of 
QSOs” in Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy (2003), 24, 11-21, examines 
Burbidge’s 1993 comprehensive data of 3000 QSOs and concludes redshifts of 
QSOs are of cosmological origin. Thomas Van Flandern proposes that redshift is 
caused by friction between the lightwave and the “classical graviton” medium 
through which it travels ( Pushing Gravity, p. 118). Similarly, John Kierien offers 
that redshift is caused by the Compton effect, not the Doppler effect 
(“Implications of the Compton Effect Interpretation of the Redshift,” IEEE Trans. 
Plasma Science 18, 61, 1990). D. R. Humphreys has suggested the redshift is 
caused by the expansion of space itself, which he coincides with his support of 
General Relativity. Halton Arp postulates that redshift is intrinsic to the object, 
and since each object is different because it is “created” at a different time, 
varying redshifts will be produced (Seeing Red, p. 195). We will have an in-depth 
analysis of this controversy later in our book. Suffice it to say for now, however, 
that the spherical patterns of quasar distribution observed in the universe are not 
dependent on one view of redshift or the other. 

624 Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, 1987; Seeing Red: Redshifts, 
Cosmology’ and Academic Science 1998. Aip quotes those not disposed to 
accepting his observational data as saying “It’s just noisy data” - Joseph Silk, 
University of Calif., Berkeley; “We have a lot of crank science in our field” - 
James Gunn, Princeton University; “I’m not being dogmatic and saying it cannot 
happen, but...” - James Peebles, Princeton University; (SeeingRed, pp. 199-200). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

of the truly great discoveries in cosmic physics.... Many 
investigations confirmed the accuracy of this periodicity. 625 

From another publication, Aip adds: “This has most lately been 
confirmed for all quasars known through 1984 by Depaquit, Vigier and 
Pecker.” 626 Added to this is the thorough investigation by the Chinese 
couple H. G. Bi and X. Zhu who, with power spectrum analysis, 
investigated the periodicity findings in all the data and found that the 
predicted periodicities (i.e., z = 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96, etc.) fit 
the formula by 94-99.5%. With more refinements, Arp states: “...the 
confidence is 99.997% or only one chance in about 33,000 of being 
accidental.” 627 

Lastly, a team studying the orientation of quasars has discovered that 
they have a preferred axis, the same as they found for radio wavelengths 
and micro wavelengths (i.e., the CMB). The team of Federico Urban and 
Ariel Zhitnitsky state: 

Observing very distant quasars, the authors 628 of have found 
evidence for a statistically significant correlation in the linear 

625 Seeing Red, p. 203. Arp adds: “And of course, many claimed it was false. One 
postdoctoral student at the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy in 
Cambridge...claimed there was no periodicity. His analysis included the faintest, 
least accurate quasars which had been shown not to exhibit periodicity. They 
showed it anyway. In a new sample of x-ray quasars, he found the periodicity but 
issued the opinion that it would go away with further measures (fainter quasars). 
We will see the opposite happened” (ibid., p. 203). Aip records another attempt to 
dismiss his data: “Now one of the ongoing attempts to discredit the redshift 
periodicity was an argument that quasars were discovered by their ultraviolet 
excess and that excess was caused by prominent emission lines moving into the 
ultraviolet window at certain redshifts - in other words the periodicity was merely 
a selection effect. It had been shown that this was not the case, but nevertheless 
the argument was widely accepted as disproving this embarrassing observational 
result” (ibid., p. 204). 

626 “The Observational Impetus for Le Sage Gravity,” Max Planck Institut fur 
Astrophysik, 1997. Burbidge wrote about the same phenomenon in Mercury’ in the 
article “Quasars in the Balance,” 17:136 in 1988. Arp has provided the most 
information in his book Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987) and Seeing 
Red: Redshifts, Cosmology’ and Academic Science (1998). He and Burbidge wrote 
of their work in Physics Today, 37:17, in 1984, in the article “Companion 
Galaxies Match Quasar Redshifts: The Debate Goes On.” 

627 Seeing Red, p. 204. 

628 Urban is referring to D. Hutsemekers, et al., in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 
332, 410 (1998); 367, 381 (2001); 441, 915 (2005). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

polarisation angles of photons in the optical spectrum over huge 
distances of order of 1 Gpc. In particular, they have found that 
these vectors tend to identify an axis in the sky which closely 
align with the direction of the cosmological dipole. The use of 
slightly different statistics gives rise to consistent results, and in 
particular yields the same preferred axis. What is important for 
us is that this fact seems to not be related to the local 
environment we are immersed in (one may indeed think it arises 
from an incorrect galactic foreground subtraction), and this is 
corroborated by the result being redshift-dependent: were the 
observed polarisations contaminated by galactic dust they would 
all be so irrespective of their redshift. Moreover, the rotation fits 
linearly to redshift at the rate of 30° per Gpc. 

Urban adds that the “identifiable preferred axis, the cosmological 
dipole...point all in the same direction, that of the [sun-earth] ecliptic or 
equinox.” 629 In other words, quasar distribution is centered around the 
Earth, just as Varshni had discovered thirty-six years earlier. John P. 
Ralston recaps all these findings and summarizes them as follows: 

The “cosmological principle” was set up early without realizing 
its implications for the horizon problem, and almost entirely 
without support from observational data. Consistent signals of 
anisotropy have been found in data on electromagnetic 
propagation, polarizations of QSOs and CMB temperature maps. 

The axis of Virgo is found again and again in signals breaking 
isotropy, from independent observables in independent energy 
regimes. There are no satisfactory explanations of these effects 
in conventional astrophysics....To summarize, our studies find 
there is nothing supporting isotropy of the CMB, and everything 
about the data contradicting zY....The PLANCK observations of 
polarization data from the CMB are eagerly awaited. We can 
predict with reasonable certainty that correlations contradicting 
isotropy will be seen; spontaneous alignment of polarizations 
will occur along the axis of Virgo. 630 

629 “The P-Odd Universe, Dark Energy and QCD,” Federico R. Urban and Ariel 
R. Zhitnitsky, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, July 13, 2011, p. 2. 

630 “Question Isotropy,” John P. Ralston, Department of Physics & Astronomy, 
The University of Kansas, Nov. 2010, abstract and assessment, 
arXiv:1011.2240vl, emphasis his. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Lastly, a paper written by Michael Longo in 2012 shows quasars 
acting in a similar way: 

Quasars provide our farthest-reaching view of the Universe. The 
Sloan Survey now contains over 100,000 quasar candidates. A 
careful look at the angular distribution of quasar magnitudes 
shows a surprising intensity enhancement with a “bulls eye” 
pattern toward (a, 8) ~ (195°, 0°) for all wavelengths from UV 
through infrared. The angular pattern and size of the 
enhancement is very similar for all wave lengths, which is 
inconsistent with a Doppler shift due to a large peculiar velocity 
toward that direction. The enhancement is also too large to 
explain as a systematic error in the quasar magnitudes. 631 

120° 160° 200° 240° 

Right Ascension 


Not only are the quasars in “bulls-eye” patterns, Longo admits they are 
aligned with the Axis of Evil: 

The direction of the quasar intensity enhancement is also close to 
that of the so-called “Axis of Evil”, a name coined by K. Land 
and J. Magueijo to describe the anomalies in the low multipoles 
of the CMB toward (a, 5) ~ (173°, 4°). The extensive literature 
on the anomalies in the CMB was recently reviewed by Copi. 633 

631 “An Anomaly in the Angular Distribution of Quasar Magnitudes: Evidence for 
a Bubble Universe with a Mass ~10 21 M©” April 25, 2012, Dept, of Physics, 
University of Michigan. 

6,2 Image taken from Longo’s 2012 paper. 

633 Ibid., p. 10. Although Longo seeks to explain away these anomalies by 
attributing them to a “bubble” universe or multiverse and gravitational lensing, it 
is merely an unproven hypothesis to support the Copernican Principle. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Violation of the Copemican Principle in Rad io Shy 

In a paper of May 2013 titled, “Is there a violation of the Copemican 
principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal noted even larger anisotropies of 
quasars and radio galaxies than what appeared in the CMB anisotropies. 
He first notes CMB anisotropies were confirmed by the Planck probe: 

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observa¬ 
tions from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected 
anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the 
[Earth’s] ecliptic. This alignment has been dubbed the “axis of 
evil” with very damaging implications for the standard model of 
cosmology. The latest data from the Planck satellite have 
confirmed the presence of these anisotropies. 634 

Singal then reports on the quasars and radio galaxies: 

Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions 
of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of 
radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most 
intensively studies sample of strong radio sources. The 
anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes 
and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% 
confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are 
merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the 
distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies 
show large systematic differences between these two sky 
regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in 
both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local 
effects to be the cause of these anomalies. 

In other words, the anisotropic quasar and radio galaxy distribution is a 
second witness to the Earth being in the center of the universe. Singal 
more or less confirm s this interpretation when he asks: 

What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should 
lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of 
earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the 

634 Ashok K. Singal, “Is there a violation of the Copemican principle in radio 
sky,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, Physical Research Laboratory, Naurangpura, 
Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2013 at arXiv:1305.4134vl, p. 1. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the 
larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the 
Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological 
principle , upon which all modern cosmological theories are 
based upon . Copernican principle states that earth does not have 
any eminent or privileged position... 

There is certainly a cause for worry. Is there a breakdown of the 
Copernican principle as things seen in two regions of sky divided 
purely by a coordinate system based on earth’s orientation in 
space, shows a very large anisotropy in source distribution? 

Why should the equinox points and the NCP should have any 
bearing on the large scale distribution of matter in the 

The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background 
(CMB) in one particular direction through space is called “evil” 
because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological 
model....there is no denying that from the large anisotropies 
present in the radio sky, independently seen both in the discrete 
source distribution and in the diffuse CMBR, the Copernican 
principle seems to be in jeopardy. 

Galaxies: Spheres of Stars Centered Around the Earth 

The above astronomers are not the only ones to discover such 
quantized and spherical distribution of the heavenly bodies centered on the 
Earth. In 1970, William G. Tifft, astronomer at Steward Observatory at the 
University of Arizona examined the redshift of various galaxies and found 
that they were all distributed at specific spherical distances from Earth, 
namely, in multiples of 72 km/sec, and a smaller grouping of 36 km/sec. 635 

635 [ writes: “There is now very firm evidence that the redshifts of galaxies are 
quantized with a primary interval near 72 km s-1” (W. G. Tifft and W. J. Cocke, 
“Global redshift quantization,” Astrophysical Journal 287:492-502, 1984). Also 
published in “Global Redshift Periodicities: Association with the Cosmic 
Background Radiation,” Astrophysics and Space Science, 239, 35 (1996); 
“Evidence for Quantized and Variable Redshifts in the CBR Rest Frame,” 
Astrophysics and Space Science, 1997. Also Tifft and Cocke in Sky and 
Telescope, 73:19, 1987: “Quantized Galaxy Redshifts,” as well as in New 
Scientist, June 22, 1985: “Galaxy Redshifts Come in Clumps,” and Tifft in Star, 
Galaxies and Cosmos, 1977. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

To picture this in your mind’s eye, it is like bands of galaxies, with 
each band separated from the other in evenly spaced and proportional 
rings. Tifft’s findings were quite shocking to the field of astronomy, since 
not only were the more obscure sources such as gamma-rays and quasars 
showing Earth in the center of the universe, but now the common galaxy, 
which was far more numerous and readily observable, was showing 
precisely the same centrality of the Earth. Tifff s work went through the 
usual rigor of peer-review, but astronomers were still reluctant to accept 
his findings, since they were well aware of the dire implications it held 
against their cherished Big Bang theory. 

Sky and Telescope, which is not by any means a geocentrist 
periodical, says of Tifff s results: “Quantized redshifts just don’t fit into 
this view of the cosmos [the Big Bang view], for they imply concentric 
shells of galaxies expanding away from a central point, Earth.” 636 

Ironically, Tifft couldn’t quite come to embrace his own results. In 
one of his more recent and comprehensive papers he writes: 

The most obvious effect is the quantization of redshifts when 
viewed from an appropriate rest frame, especially the cosmic 
background rest frame. The redshift has imprinted on it a pattern 
that appears to have its origin in microscopic quantum physics, 
yet it carries this imprint across cosmological boundaries. A 
hierarchy of quantized domains is suggested. 637 

Typical of modem scientists who often lock themselves into 
paradigms, Tifft, rather than accept the face-value explanation that the 
galaxies are distributed in periodic distances from his telescope, opted for 
the ad hoc idea that something was “imprinted” on the light as it traveled 
from the galaxies to the Earth that merely made it appear as if it had come 
in quantized groupings. He also recognizes that even these “imprints” are 
quantized only when “viewed from an appropriate rest frame,” but he 
deliberately ignores the rest frame upon which his telescope is seated, 

636 “Quantized Redshifts: What’s Going on Here?” Sky and Telescope, August 
1992, p. 128 (84:128); see also January 1987, p. 19 and November 1973, p. 289. 
Halton Aip writes: “The fact that measured values of redshift do not vary 
continuously but come in so unexpected that conventional astronomy 
has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational 
evidence” {Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology> and Academic Science, p. 195). 

637 W. G. Tifft, “Global Redshift Periodicities and Variability,” The Astrophysical 
Journal, 485: 465-483, August 20, 1997, p. 465. Tifft’s purpose in giving this 
alternate explanation is to protect “a singular origin of the universe.. .and other 
early universe effects” {ibid). 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

namely, Earth, and arbitrarily chooses the ubiquitous “cosmic background” 
(the CMB) as his preferred absolute. Tifft often refers to the “CMB rest 
frame” in his paper, but if he believes any such entity is to be understood 
as a “rest frame” then he certainly can’t hold to the theory of General 
Relativity that brought him the Big Bang, since the theory doesn’t possess 
any rest frames. 

Geocentric View of Tifft's Data 

In any case, recognizing the anti-Copemican implications of Tifft’s 
work for what they really were, in 1991, with the express purpose of 
overturning Tifft’s results, astronomers Bruce N. G. Guthrie and William 
M. Napier of the Royal University at Edinburgh compared the redshifts 
from 89 single spiral galaxies. To their astonishment they found a 
periodicity of 37.2 km/sec, which was very close to Tifft’s recently revised 
quantum multiple of 36.2 km/sec for this class of galaxies. As Robert 
Matthews states: 

So unbelievable was this phenomenon that, when they first 
submitted their paper to Astronomy and Astrophysics a referee 
asked them to repeat their analysis with another set of galaxies. 

This, Napier and Guthrie did with 117 other galaxies. The same 
37.5 km/sec figure thrust itself out of the data; and their paper 
was accepted. 618 

638 “Do Galaxies Fly through the Universe in Formation?” Science, 271:759 
(1996). So surprising is this information that M. Disney, a galaxy specialist from 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

As a true scientist, Matthews understands quite well the implications 
of Napier’s and Guthrie’s exhaustive study. Like Varshni, he spares no 
words indicating how this evidence systematically overturns all prevailing 
theories of the cosmos: 

Unless Napier and Guthrie and, of course, W.G. Tifft, the 
discoverer of IT, can be proven wrong, all of modem astronomy 
and cosmology will be in jeopardy: the expanding universe, the 
big bang, the presumed age of the universe, not to mention the 
endless assertions that these are all facts not theories. 619 

D. Koo and R. Krone, two University of Chicago scientists, did the 
same kind of redshift analysis on galaxies. Their results were identical to 
Napier’s and Guthrie’s and even made it to the New York Times. They 
conclude: “...the clusters of galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions 
of stars, seemed to be concentrated in evenly spaced layers” [/. e ., 
concentric spheres around the Earth]. 640 Incidentally, for those who see 
symbolic significance in numbers, the number of “evenly spaced layers” 
discovered by each team of astronomers is seven. There are seven evenly- 
spaced layers in the north direction, and seven evenly-spaced layers to the 
south. Koo admits that astronomers are very disturbed at this spacing, 
obviously because it gives evidence of intelligent design and geocentrism. 

Added to this evidence is the astonishing fact that the most distant 
galaxies ( e.g ., those said to be 10 billion light years away from Earth) look 
very much the same as the galaxies very close to us. 641 This creates an 
intractable problem for current cosmology. The most distant galaxies 
should logically appear 9-10 billion years younger in their formation, since 
their light took that long to arrive on Earth. One could possibly explain this 
discrepancy by asserting that galaxies mature very fast and level off after a 

the University of Wales, stated: “It would mean abandoning a great deal of present 
research.” James Peebles, a cosmologist from Princeton University, stated: “’s 
a real shocker” (ScienceFrontiers. No. 105: May-June 1996). 

639 “Do Galaxies Fly through the Universe in Formation?” Science, 271:759 

640 Malcolm Browne, In Chile, Galaxy-Watching Robot Seeks Measure of 
Universe, New York Times, Dec. 17, 1991. D. Koo, and R. Krone, Annual Review 
of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 30, 613 (1992). In 1981 R. Kirshner discovered 
three immense and widely separated voids in space with no galaxies at 12,000 to 
18,000 km/sec (“Deep Redshift Survey of Galaxies Suggest Million-MPC3 Void,” 
Physics Today, 35:17-19, January 1982). 

641 “Most Distant Galaxies Surprisingly Mature,” Science News, 119:148, 1981. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

billion years, but that, of course, would not only be an ad hoc answer, it 
would conflict with other accepted understandings of current cosmology 
regarding galaxies. 

Not only do the galaxies look the same, but various groups of galaxies 
are so large that, given modem cosmology’s estimate as to the rate 
galaxies and clusters form, it would be impossible for these massive 
structures to form with the little time afforded by the Big Bang theory (a 
common complaint raised by Steady State theorists). For example, a few 
years ago astronomers discovered the Great Galactic Wall, which is a mass 
of galaxies 500 million light-years by 300 million light-years by 15 million 
light-years in total area. In 1989, Science magazine admitted that such a 
structure could not have been formed in the 15 billion years then assigned 
to the age of the universe. 642 The only possible way would be for the Great 
Galactic Wall to have at least 100 times the mass it presently has, which 
prompted Stephen Hawking to comment: “Either we have failed to see 
99% of the universe, or we are wrong about how the universe began.” 643 
Hawking’s admission is magnified by the fact that, as noted above, 
thirteen additional “Great Walls” of galaxies have been discovered since 
his co mm ent was made in 1989. 644 

642 From the work of Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra of the Harvard- 
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Science, November 17, 1989, as cited in 
The Biblical Astronomer, Vol. 2, No. 61, p. 11. 

643 Ibid., p. 11-12. 

644 See also Astronomy, “A Cross-Section of the Universe,” November 1989; 
“Southern Super Cluster Traced Across the Sky,” January, 1990; “Sky Survey 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Tke 2005 SI oan Dig’ital Sky Survey 

As one thing leads to another, astronomers are very anxious to use 
their tools to map out the visible universe. Prompted by the above studies 
and figures, even more sophisticated equipment, backed by even more 
institutional money, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey is in operation to give 
what astronomers regard as the most accurate mapping of the galaxies, 
quasars, and other objects in the universe to date, and probably for some 
time to come. As noted in connection with the data from the CMB, Max 
Tegmark and a group of over 200 astronomers from 13 different 
institutions are involved in this project. As of this date, they have mapped 
over 200,000 galaxies. In the words of its own authors, the Sloan Digital 
Sky Survey or SDSS: the most ambitious astronomical survey project ever 
undertaken. The survey will map in detail one-quarter of the 
entire sky, determining the positions and absolute brightnesses of 
more than 100 million celestial objects. It will also measure the 
distances to more than a million galaxies and quasars. Apache 
Point Observatory, site of the SDSS telescopes, is operated by 
the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC). The SDSS 
addresses fascinating, fundamental questions about the universe. 

With the survey, astronomers will be able to see the large-scale 
patterns of galactic sheets and voids in the universe. Scientists 
have varying ideas about the evolution of the universe, and 
different patterns of large-scale structure point to different 
theories of how the universe evolved. The Sloan Digital Sky 
Survey will tell us which theories are right - or whether we have 
to come up with entirely new ideas. The Sloan Digital Sky 
Survey (SDSS) is a joint project of The University of Chicago, 
Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan 
Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for 
Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics 
(MPA), New Mexico State University, University of Pittsburgh, 
Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and 
the University of Washington. Funding for the project has been 
provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the participating 
institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

Reveals Regularly Spaced Galaxies,” June 1990; Sky and Telescope, “The Great 
Wall,” January 1990; “A Universe of Bubbles and Voids,” September 1990, ibid. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of 
Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck 
Society. 645 

So what has this ambitious project found? Precisely the same thing 
that the previous studies have found - that Earth is in the center of all the 
galaxies and quasars mapped in the known universe. The pictorial 
provided by SDSS shows Earth in the center of two wedge-shaped galaxy 
segments that also show galaxy density decreases as the distance from 
Earth increases. Only from the vantage point of Earth do these stunning 
proportions become significant. In other words, if one were to view them 
from another part of the universe the concentric proportions would not 
appear. The centrality of Earth provided by the Sloan Digital Survey is 
thus consistent with the quantization of redshift values that have been 
accumulated for four decades prior. Once again, the “Copemican 
Principle” is violated. 

The importance of the foregoing evidence regarding the periodic 
distribution of galaxies is brought out when contrasted to its opposite. As 
Harold Slusher puts it: 

If the distribution of galaxies is homogeneous, then doubling the 
distance should increase the galaxy count eightfold; tripling it 
should produce a galaxy count 27 times as large. Actual counts 
of galaxies show a rate substantially less than this. If allowed to 
stand without correction, this feature of the galaxy counts 
implies a thinning out with distance in all directions, and that we 
are at the very center of the highest concentration of matter in 
the universe....This would argue that we are at the center of the 
universe. When galaxy counts are adjusted for dimming effects, 
it appears that the number of galaxies per unit volume of space 
increases with distance. From this we still appear to be at the 
center of the universe, but now it coincides with the point of 
least concentration of matter. 646 

645 Cited at the website. A picture of the latest galaxy-mapping showing 
Earth in the center of over 65,000 galaxies appears at: 

646 Harold S. Slusher, The Origin of the Universe: An Examination of the Big 
Bang and Steady State Cosmologies, El Cajon, CA, Institute for Creation 
Research, 1980, pp. 12-13, emphasis added. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

647 SDSS image courtesy of NASA. Ring alignments and spacing calculated by 
Robert Sungenis. Pictorial by BUF Compagnie for Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 


The war between Big Bang theorists and their opponents wages even 
more fiercely as time goes on. As of this writing, in a recent article titled 
“No Quantized Redshifts,” Sky and Telescope noted that a 2002 study 
conducted by Edward Hawkins and his colleagues at the University of 
Nottingham, England, revealed contrary evidence: 

...Hawkins...recently sifted through the massive new 2dF [Two 
Degree Field] redshift surveys of galaxies and quasars to test this 
idea. These surveys provided “by far the largest and most 
homogeneous sample for such a study,” writes Hawkins in the 
October 11 th Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical 

648 Pictorial by BUF Compagnie for Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

Society....Among 1,647 galaxy-quasar pairs, no sign of any 
quantized redshifts appears. 649 

This study was specifically designed to test Arp’s theory that various 
galaxies and quasars occupy the same vicinity; the former producing the 
latter when material from the galaxy is ejected. If Aip is right, then 
obviously quasars are not at “cosmological” distances from Earth, that is, 
they are not at the farthest reaches of the universe. In addition, Aip holds 
that the redshifts of these galaxy-pairs are quantized, that is, they appear in 
regular intervals and thus are not representative of a homogeneous 
universe. Both of these (i.e., pairing and quantization) would be impossible 
to explain from a Big Bang perspective. 

Out of 250,000 galaxies and 30,000 quasars, the Hawkins team 
limited their study to 1647 quasars, the quasar pairs for the purpose of 
“quality control.” Of these pairs they state: 

No periodicity leaps off the page, but since the effect is likely to 
be quite subtle, one would not necessarily expect to be able to 
pick it out from the raw data, so it is important to carry out a 
rigorous statistical analysis. 650 

This, of course, opens the door for disagreements over the statistical 
data. At this point, opposing sides point the finger at each other. The 
Hawkins team determines that: “one can manipulate the data in order to 
specify ones own more optimal window - a procedure that statisticians 
whimsically refer to as ‘carpentry,” and they conclude that “.. .the previous 
detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the 
effects of the window [statistical] function.” 651 

Followers of the Aip team see it quite differently. Geoffrey Burbidge 
asserts that the entire work of the Hawkin s team “is a real piece of 
dishonesty,” since Burbidge’s colleague, William Napier, had already 
pointed out a serious statistical flaw in Hawkins’ analysis before he 
published his paper. Napier subsequently submitted a rebuttal to the Royal 
Astronomical Society alerting the society to Hawkins’ flaw, as well as 
citing a recent Hubble photograph showing that one of the pairs studied by 
Hawkins had a luminous filament that physically connected the galaxy to 

649 Alan M. MacRobert, Sky and Telescope, December 2002, p. 28. 

650 E. Hawkins, S. J. Maddox and M. R. Merrifield, “No periodicities in 2dF 
Redshift Survey data,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society’, Vol. 
336, Is. 1, October 2002, p. L15. 

651 Ibid., p. L16, L17. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

the quasar! 652 Although Hawkins asserts that he and his team “attempted to 
carry out this analysis without prejudice,” Burbidge concludes that the 
resistance of Hawkins and other Big Bang theorists is due to the 
“sociological problem associated with the need to believe” that redshifts 
are related to distances. 653 

Burbidge has a lot on his side. As of January 2005, his research led to 
the discovery of a quasar situated almost at the very center of a spiral 
galaxy, NCG 73 1 9. 654 Obviously, this phenomenon cannot be dismissed by 
“statistical analysis,” unless opponents attempt to argue that the galaxy’s 
core is transparent and allows us to see the quasar as if one is looking 
through a peephole, an argument that no one seems willing to adopt. 

Other studies continued the controversy. In 2005, the team of Su Min 
Tang and Shuang Nan Zhang state they “find there is no evidence for a 
periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(l + z), or at any other 
frequency.” 655 In early 2006, the team of K. Bajan, P. Flin, W. Godlowski 

652 William Napier and Geoffrey Burbidge, Monthly Notices of the Royal 
Astronomical Society, 2003, 342, pp. 601-604. 

653 Govert Schilling, “New results reawaken quasar distance dispute,” Science, 
October 11, 2002. Schilling adds that a recent Hubble photograph produced by 
Space Telescope Science Institute of the galaxy-quasar pair NGC 4319 (at z = 
0.006) and Markarian 205 (atz = 0.070), respectively, showed no luminous bridge 
connecting the two thus implying that the bridge didn’t exist, contrary to Arp’s 
assertion. Arp, accusing STSI of “deliberately misleading the public,” obtained an 
enhanced photo of the Hubble photograph that clearly shows a bridge. Confirming 
Arp’s contentions, a recent report showed that galaxy NGC 7603 and its 
companion quasar each had very different redshifts but were physically linked by 
a luminous bridge. The authors concluded it was “the most impressive case of a 
system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far” (M. Lopez-Corredoira and C. 
Gutierrez, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2002, 390, pp. L15-18). The higher 
redshift for the quasar, Arp maintains, is due to it being newly formed from the 
much older galaxy. The same is true for galaxies NGC2775 and NGC2777, 
which, contrary to conventional wisdom proposing they were merging, is an 
example, according to Arp, that the former produced the latter, which was 
confirmed by the fact that the latter had no metal in its spectral lines as well as a 
much higher redshift than the former. In addition, the galaxies were connected by 
an “umbilical cord of neutral hydrogen” (Halton Arp, Seeing Red, Montreal, 
Apeiron, 1998, p. 103). Big Bang theorists have proposed the higher redshifts of 
the quasars are due to gravitational lensing, but Aip retorts that lensing cannot be 
the cause since the quasar aligns itself along the minor, not major, axis of the host 
galaxy. Arp had the support of Fred Hoyle in the 1981book The Quasar 
Controversy Resolved and in 2000 with A Different Approach to Cosmology’. 

654 Astrophysical Journal, February 10, 2005. 

655 “Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with 
Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data,” Submitted June 16, 2005, p. 1. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

and V. N. Pervushin are not convinced. On the one hand the authors admit: 
“We conclude that galaxy redshift periodization is an effect which can 
really exist,” on the other hand they reveal their link with E. Hawkins: 
“The subject of redshift periodization is not very popular, sometimes even 
regarded as scientifically suspicious. However, we share the opinion 
expressed by Hawkins et al. that all these effects should be carefully 
checked.” 656 Bajan shows the various ways the data can be analyzed. Their 
chief complaint against Tifft, et al, is they didn’t use a big enough sample. 
Yet even when Bajan examines a bigger sample, he admits that 
periodization, although not as prominent as Tifft believed, is still a 
legitimate inteipretation of the data: “We applied the power spectrum 
analysis using the Hann function as a weighting together with the 
jackknife error estimation. We perform the detailed analysis of this 
approach. The distribution of galaxy redshift seems to be nonrandom.” 657 
“Nonrandom,” of course, means that it has a definitive distribution pattern. 
Bajan then says: “For galactocentric reduction at the 2o confidence level 
the peaks around 73 and 24 km/sec are observed.” But this is similar to the 
peak levels Tifft observed as late as 1996, which Bajan admits is “72 and 
36 km/sec.” Bajan adds: “...the probability that they are coming from 
nonrandom distribution is 95%,” which speaks very highly of Tifft’s 
quantized distribution patterns. In the end, Bajan concludes: 

The previous result, based on the selected samples, showed the 
existence of the periodicity in the galaxy redshift distribution at a 
very high significance level. We found that at the 2o significance 
level some effect was observed. We think that the solution of this 
curious phenomenon can be solved in the near future by using 
large database... 658 

Interestingly enough, another study performed in 2006 utilized the 
largest database ever gathered. In this particular study, M. B. Bell and D. 
McDiarmid state that even Tang and Zhang “found that there is a 
significant periodicity with period near 0.7 in redshift in the full sample 
containing over 46,000 redshifts.” 659 Bell and McDiarmid show that their 
independent results confirm Aip’s and Tifft’s periodicity in six significant 

656 “On the Investigations of Galaxy Redshift Periodicity,” April 2006, pp. 16-17. 

657 Ibid., p. 22. 

65S Ibid., p. 23. 

659 “Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree 
with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift 
Model,” Submitted , March 7, 2006, p. 4. 


Chapter 3: Evidence Earth is in the Center of the Universe 

places. They also show that at higher levels, Tang and Zhang’s data 
analysis was faulty. They write: 

There is no clear evidence for a power peak near a frequency of 
1.6 in the lower half of the redshift data... .Since Tang and Zh